Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon 8065S

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
820M 840M 860M 880M 890M 8065S RX 8040S RX 8060S
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 Xe 16EUs Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 750 32EUs Xe G1 Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 8065S and Iris Xe Graphics G7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Radeon 8065S
2026
55 Watt
45.41
+374%

8065S outperforms Graphics G7 by a whopping 374% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking92513
Place by popularitynot in top-10020
Power efficiency63.97no data
ArchitectureRDNA 3.5 (2025−2026)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGorgon HaloTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date2026 (recently)15 August 2020 (6 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores256096
Core clock speed1295 MHzno data
Boost clock speed3000 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology4 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattno data
Texture fill rate480.0no data
ROPs64no data
TMUs160no data
Ray Tracing Cores40no data
L2 Cache2 MBno data
L3 Cache32 MBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 5.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedDDR4
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
Shared memory++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)DirectX 12_1
Shader Model6.8no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.4-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 140−150
+422%
27−30
−422%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+390%
50−55
−390%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+419%
21−24
−419%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 120−130
+378%
27−30
−378%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 140−150
+422%
27−30
−422%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+240%
40−45
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+390%
50−55
−390%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+419%
21−24
−419%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+368%
30−35
−368%
Fortnite 190−200
+238%
55−60
−238%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+319%
40−45
−319%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+383%
35−40
−383%
Valorant 260−270
+190%
90−95
−190%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 140−150
+422%
27−30
−422%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+240%
40−45
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+390%
50−55
−390%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+90.4%
140−150
−90.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+419%
21−24
−419%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+368%
30−35
−368%
Fortnite 190−200
+238%
55−60
−238%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+319%
40−45
−319%
Grand Theft Auto V 140−150
+300%
35−40
−300%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+489%
18−20
−489%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+383%
35−40
−383%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+600%
24−27
−600%
Valorant 260−270
+190%
90−95
−190%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150
+240%
40−45
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+419%
21−24
−419%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+368%
30−35
−368%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+319%
40−45
−319%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+383%
35−40
−383%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+600%
24−27
−600%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 190−200
+238%
55−60
−238%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+413%
24−27
−413%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+347%
70−75
−347%
Grand Theft Auto V 95−100
+654%
12−14
−654%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+527%
10−12
−527%
Valorant 300−350
+218%
95−100
−218%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+371%
24−27
−371%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+375%
12−14
−375%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+470%
20−22
−470%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+496%
21−24
−496%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90−95
+422%
18−20
−422%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+525%
20−22
−525%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+460%
10−11
−460%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+430%
20−22
−430%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+760%
5−6
−760%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+600%
10−12
−600%
Valorant 270−280
+547%
40−45
−547%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+525%
12−14
−525%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+420%
5−6
−420%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+611%
9−10
−611%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+481%
16−18
−481%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+678%
9−10
−678%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 60−65
+611%
9−10
−611%

Full HD
High

Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8065S is 760% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Radeon 8065S performs better in 39 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 45.41 9.58
Chip lithography 4 nm 10 nm

Radeon 8065S has a 374% higher aggregate performance score, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 8065S is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
RTX 3080 Ti Mobile GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7
vs
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) Graphics 4 Cores iGPU (Arc)
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
RTX 5070 Mobile GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile
Apple M5 Max 32-Core GPU M5 Max 32-Core GPU
vs
Apple M4 Pro 16-Core GPU Pro 16-Core GPU
Apple M5 Max 32-Core GPU M5 Max 32-Core GPU
vs
RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Embedded PRO 4000 Blackwell Embedded
Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile
vs
Graphics 1 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU 1 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
Quadro P4000 Quadro P4000
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
GTX 1070 Ti GTX 1070 Ti
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
Apple M1 GPU M1 GPU
Radeon 8065S Radeon 8065S
vs
Apple M3 Pro 18-Core GPU Pro 18-Core GPU
UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs
vs
HD Graphics 5500 Graphics 5500
N1X 48SM N1X 48SM
vs
B200 SXM6 B200 SXM6
N1 20SM N1 20SM
vs
B300 SXM6 AC SXM6 AC

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon 8065S on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 3335 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon 8065S or Iris Xe Graphics G7, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.