Radeon 8065S vs RX 7900M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 7900M and Radeon 8065S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
7900M outperforms 8065S by a moderate 18% 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 | 62 | 92 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 23.00 | 64.03 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 31 | Gorgon Halo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (2 years ago) | 2026 (recently) |
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 | 4608 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2090 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 57,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 601.9 | 480.0 |
| ROPs | 192 | 64 |
| TMUs | 288 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | 40 |
| L0 Cache | 2.3 MB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 32 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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | no 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 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 | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
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 | 148
+23.3%
| 120−130 |
| 1440p | 107 | 90−95
−15.9%
|
| 4K | 73
+21.7%
| 60−65 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 160−170
+18.4%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+13.1%
|
240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
100−110 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 150−160
+21.7%
|
120−130 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 160−170
+18.4%
|
140−150 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+8.2%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+13.1%
|
240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+15.3%
|
140−150 |
| Fortnite | 230−240
+20.9%
|
190−200 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+17.6%
|
170−180 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.4%
|
160−170 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+16.3%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 160−170
+18.4%
|
140−150 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+8.2%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+13.1%
|
240−250 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+20.2%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+15.3%
|
140−150 |
| Fortnite | 230−240
+20.9%
|
190−200 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+17.6%
|
170−180 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 139 | 140−150
+3.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+19.6%
|
110−120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.4%
|
160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 210−220
+25.1%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+16.3%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+8.2%
|
140−150 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 135
+23.9%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 128 | 140−150
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+17.6%
|
170−180 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.4%
|
160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 168 | 170−180
+4.2%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+18.1%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 230−240
+20.9%
|
190−200 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+25.2%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+21.2%
|
300−350 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+8.2%
|
95−100 |
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+23.2%
|
65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+25%
|
140−150 |
| Valorant | 350−400
+17.2%
|
300−350 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+16.8%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93
+63.2%
|
55−60 |
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+7.9%
|
110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+24.3%
|
130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+26.6%
|
90−95 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+19.2%
|
120−130 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+31.4%
|
35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+23.2%
|
55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 146
+37.7%
|
100−110 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+23.3%
|
40−45 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+50.6%
|
75−80 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+10.8%
|
270−280 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+21.3%
|
75−80 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+69.2%
|
24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+60.9%
|
60−65 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+29%
|
90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+32.9%
|
70−75 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+23.4%
|
60−65 |
This is how RX 7900M and Radeon 8065S compete in popular games:
- RX 7900M is 23% faster in 1080p
- RX 7900M is 19% faster in 1440p
- RX 7900M is 22% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7900M is 69% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 8065S is 13% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7900M performs better in 51 tests (93%)
- Radeon 8065S performs better in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 53.15 | 45.22 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 55 Watt |
RX 7900M has a 18% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 8065S, on the other hand, has a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 69% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 7900M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8065S 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.
