Radeon Pro 560X vs 8065S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8065S with Radeon Pro 560X, including specs and performance data.
8065S outperforms Pro 560X by a whopping 429% 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 | 552 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 65.83 | 9.12 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Gorgon Halo | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 28 September 2026 (recently) | 16 July 2018 (8 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 1004 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 480.0 | 64.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.056 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 1.3 MB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no 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 size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 81.28 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.131 |
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 | 210−220 | 41
−80.5%
|
| 1440p | 220−230 | 43
−80.5%
|
| 4K | 85−90
+400%
| 17 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+559%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+434%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+528%
|
18−20 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140
+682%
|
16−18 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+559%
|
21−24 |
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+244%
|
43 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+434%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+528%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+300%
|
37 |
| Fortnite | 200−210
+206%
|
66 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+242%
|
53 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+431%
|
30−35 |
| Valorant | 270−280
+215%
|
85−90 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+559%
|
21−24 |
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+311%
|
36 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+434%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+223%
|
86 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+528%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+348%
|
33 |
| Fortnite | 200−210
+405%
|
40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+262%
|
50 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+345%
|
33 |
| Metro Exodus | 110−120
+511%
|
19 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+325%
|
40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180−190
+435%
|
34 |
| Valorant | 270−280
+215%
|
85−90 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+348%
|
33 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+528%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+377%
|
31 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+403%
|
36 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+431%
|
30−35 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180−190
+810%
|
20 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 200−210
+531%
|
32 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+700%
|
16−18 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+489%
|
57 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+818%
|
10−12 |
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+555%
|
11 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+247%
|
85−90 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+452%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+550%
|
18−20 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+576%
|
21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+717%
|
12−14 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+617%
|
18−20 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+746%
|
13 |
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+543%
|
7 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+789%
|
9−10 |
| Valorant | 280−290
+628%
|
35−40 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+670%
|
10−11 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+570%
|
10 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+547%
|
14−16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9 |
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 71 | 71 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 69 | 69 |
| Valorant | 26 | 26 |
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 45−50 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30 | 30 |
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
This is how Radeon 8065S and Pro 560X compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S is 412% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8065S is 412% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 8065S is 400% 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 1833% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S performs better in 55 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 46.51 | 8.79 |
| Recency | 28 September 2026 | 16 July 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 75 Watt |
Radeon 8065S has a 429% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 71% more advanced lithography process, and 27% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8065S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 8065S is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
