Radeon 8065S vs AI PRO R9700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon AI PRO R9700 with Radeon 8065S, including specs and performance data.

AI PRO R9700
2025, $1,299
32 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
65.44
+47.4%

AI PRO R9700 outperforms 8065S by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2898
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation28.27no data
Power efficiency16.8762.44
ArchitectureRDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNavi 48Gorgon Halo
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2025 (1 year ago)2026 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores40962560
Core clock speed1660 MHz1295 MHz
Boost clock speed2920 MHz3000 MHz
Number of transistors53,900 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology4 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate747.5480.0
Floating-point processing power47.84 TFLOPSno data
ROPs12864
TMUs256160
Tensor Cores128no data
Ray Tracing Cores6440
L0 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache8 MB2 MB
L3 Cache64 MB32 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 5.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 16-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount32 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2518 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth644.6 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1aPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.22.0
Vulkan1.31.4
DLSS+-

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.

AI PRO R9700 65.44
+47.4%
Radeon 8065S 44.39

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.

AI PRO R9700 27263
+47.4%
Samples: 111
Radeon 8065S 18491
Samples: 1

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 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Fortnite 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Fortnite 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 65.44 44.39
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 55 Watt

AI PRO R9700 has a 47% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 8065S, on the other hand, has 445% lower power consumption.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8065S in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 8065S is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.4 40 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon AI PRO R9700 or Radeon 8065S, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.