Radeon 660M vs 8065S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8065S and Radeon 660M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8065S outperforms 660M by a whopping 509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 85 | 587 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 69 |
| Power efficiency | 65.83 | 14.87 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Gorgon Halo | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 September 2026 (recently) | 3 January 2023 (3 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 cores | 2560 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 480.0 | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.459 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 6 |
| L0 Cache | 1.3 MB | 96 KB |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | 8 MB |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 140−150 | 23
−83.6%
|
| 4K | 75−80
+477%
| 13 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+400%
|
29 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+222%
|
78 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+371%
|
24 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140
+565%
|
20 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+530%
|
23 |
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+335%
|
30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+340%
|
57 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+465%
|
20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+393%
|
30 |
| Fortnite | 200−210
+330%
|
45−50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+432%
|
30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+507%
|
27−30 |
| Valorant | 270−280
+243%
|
75−80 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+1015%
|
13 |
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+335%
|
30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+991%
|
23 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+126%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+707%
|
14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+469%
|
26 |
| Fortnite | 200−210
+330%
|
45−50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+432%
|
30−35 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+488%
|
25 |
| Metro Exodus | 110−120
+673%
|
15 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+507%
|
27−30 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180−190
+600%
|
26 |
| Valorant | 270−280
+243%
|
75−80 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+335%
|
30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+606%
|
16−18 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+492%
|
25 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+432%
|
30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+507%
|
27−30 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180−190
+1113%
|
15 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 200−210
+330%
|
45−50 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+814%
|
14−16 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+469%
|
55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+1022%
|
9−10 |
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+800%
|
8−9 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+296%
|
75−80 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+625%
|
16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+631%
|
16−18 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+689%
|
18−20 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+880%
|
10−11 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+706%
|
16−18 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+511%
|
18−20 |
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 280−290
+735%
|
30−35 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+863%
|
8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+857%
|
7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+708%
|
12−14 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+943%
|
7−8 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+843%
|
7−8 |
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 56 | 56 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 48 | 48 |
| Valorant | 75−80 | 75−80 |
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 40−45 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7 | 6−7 |
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
This is how Radeon 8065S and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S is 509% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8065S is 477% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8065S is 2800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S performs better in 55 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 46.51 | 7.64 |
| Recency | 28 September 2026 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
Radeon 8065S has a 509% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 33% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has 27% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8065S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 660M 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.
