Radeon 8065S vs RX 9070 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 9070 XT with Radeon 8065S, including specs and performance data.

RX 9070 XT
2025, $599
16 GB GDDR6, 304 Watt
64.34
+42.3%

9070 XT outperforms 8065S by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3293
Place by popularity18not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation63.80no data
Power efficiency16.4864.03
ArchitectureRDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNavi 48Gorgon Halo
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 March 2025 (1 year ago)2026 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 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 speed2970 MHz3000 MHz
Number of transistors53,900 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology4 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)304 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate760.3480.0
Floating-point processing power48.66 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 connectors2x 8-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 amount16 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
Vulkan1.41.4
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.

RX 9070 XT 64.34
+42.3%
Radeon 8065S 45.22

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.

RX 9070 XT 26920
+42.3%
Samples: 18277
Radeon 8065S 18918
Samples: 2

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 HD206
+47.1%
140−150
1440p11680−85
−31%
4K73
+46%
50−55

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.91no data
1440p5.16no data
4K8.21no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 200−210
+42.6%
140−150
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+26.5%
240−250
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170
+49.5%
100−110

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 200−210
+42.6%
140−150
Battlefield 5 170−180
+19.9%
140−150
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+26.5%
240−250
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170
+49.5%
100−110
Far Cry 5 296
+104%
140−150
Fortnite 300−350
+54.1%
190−200
Forza Horizon 4 250−260
+45.5%
170−180
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2.4%
160−170
Valorant 350−400
+44.3%
260−270

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 200−210
+42.6%
140−150
Battlefield 5 170−180
+19.9%
140−150
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+26.5%
240−250
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170
+49.5%
100−110
Far Cry 5 285
+96.6%
140−150
Far Cry 6 265
+101%
130−140
Fortnite 300−350
+54.1%
190−200
Forza Horizon 4 250−260
+45.5%
170−180
Grand Theft Auto V 170−180
+18.1%
140−150
Metro Exodus 160−170
+48.2%
110−120
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2.4%
160−170
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 497
+184%
170−180
Valorant 350−400
+44.3%
260−270

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180
+19.9%
140−150
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170
+49.5%
100−110
Far Cry 5 270
+86.2%
140−150
Forza Horizon 4 250−260
+45.5%
170−180
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2.4%
160−170
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 257
+46.9%
170−180
Valorant 350−400
+46.5%
260−270

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+54.1%
190−200

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+61.8%
120−130
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+56.1%
300−350
Far Cry 6 210
+136%
85−90
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+41.8%
95−100
Metro Exodus 110−120
+57.1%
70−75
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+45.8%
120−130
Valorant 450−500
+51.7%
300−350

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+45.1%
110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+63.2%
55−60
Far Cry 5 260
+128%
110−120
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+61.3%
130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 197
+110%
90−95

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+20.8%
120−130

4K
High

Atomic Heart 60−65
+50%
40−45
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+58.9%
55−60
Far Cry 6 126
+200%
40−45
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170
+50.9%
100−110
Metro Exodus 70−75
+65.1%
40−45
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168
+118%
75−80
Valorant 300−350
+14.4%
270−280

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+60%
75−80
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+48.3%
60−65
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+73.1%
24−27
Far Cry 5 152
+138%
60−65
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+84.9%
90−95
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+37.1%
70−75

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+23.4%
60−65

This is how RX 9070 XT and Radeon 8065S compete in popular games:

  • RX 9070 XT is 47% faster in 1080p
  • RX 9070 XT is 45% faster in 1440p
  • RX 9070 XT is 46% faster in 4K

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

  • in Far Cry 6, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 9070 XT is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 9070 XT performs better in 56 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 64.34 45.22
Power consumption (TDP) 304 Watt 55 Watt

RX 9070 XT has a 42% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 8065S, on the other hand, has 82% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 9070 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8065S in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 9070 XT is a desktop 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.


4.2 3949 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9070 XT 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 RX 9070 XT or Radeon 8065S, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.