AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 8040S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no shared benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon 8040S. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win count stands at zero for both parts. This absence of direct comparisons means the only quantitative performance anchor available is the Radeon 8040S's own benchmark suite, which shows a Passmark G3D score of 10,578 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 5,138. The Instinct MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs, whereas the Radeon 8040S holds a percentile ranking of 17.

The Radeon 8040S's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. It sits 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, which averages 2,433 points, and 0.6% above the Intel HD Graphics 610, which averages 2,425 points. It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M by 0.7%, with that rival averaging 2,422 points. The only rival that beats it is the AMD Radeon RX 7400, which averages 2,467 points, putting the 8040S 1.1% behind. These deltas are narrow, indicating the 8040S clusters with entry-level discrete and integrated graphics from previous generations rather than competing with modern high-end parts.

The Instinct MI350X, by contrast, has no rival data to compare against. Its percentile of 50 places it in the middle of the database's entire GPU population, but without scores, this percentile cannot be tied to any specific workload performance. The Radeon 8040S's individual benchmark scores show its strongest result in Passmark DirectX 9 at 134 points, followed by DirectX 11 at 80 points, DirectX 10 at 48 points, and DirectX 12 at 47 points. Its 2D score of 1,052 is far higher than its 3D score, which is typical for integrated parts where memory bandwidth and driver overhead limit 3D throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural families and process nodes. The Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon 8040S uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. The MI350X is built around a chip labeled MI350 256CU, and the 8040S uses a chip called Strix Halo. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the 8040S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The 8040S's transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 308 mm². The MI350X's die is roughly eight times larger in area, and the transistor density figure confirms a much higher absolute transistor budget. The 8040S's transistor density is not recorded.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero raster output units. The 8040S has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MI350X also reports zero pixel rate, while the 8040S delivers 89.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the MI350X is 2,252.8 GTexel/s, versus 179.2 GTexel/s for the 8040S, a 12.6-fold difference. The MI350X has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 8040S includes 16 RT cores.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The 8040S uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the MI350X runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The 8040S runs at 1295 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, with system-shared memory. The 8040S has higher clock speeds, but the MI350X compensates with far more compute units and a vastly wider memory interface.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 8040S wins in any scenario requiring a display output, graphics API support, or ray tracing. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X reports N/A for all three APIs. The 8040S also has 16 RT cores, which the MI350X lacks entirely. The 8040S records a pixel rate of 89.60 GPixel/s and has 32 ROPs, so it can drive rasterized frames to a screen. The MI350X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of zero, meaning it is not intended for any interactive graphics workload.

The Instinct MI350X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 72.09 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is also 72.09 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The 8040S delivers 5.734 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1. The MI350X leads by a factor of roughly 12.6 in floating-point throughput. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the MI350X at 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 179.2 GTexel/s for the 8040S.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the MI350X overwhelmingly. Its 288 GB of HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s is designed for large model inference and training data sets. The 8040S has no dedicated memory, relying on system-shared RAM with bandwidth that is system-dependent. For workloads that fit in the 8040S's shared memory and run within its 55 W power envelope, it delivers integrated-class performance, but any memory-bound or capacity-bound task will hit the system bandwidth ceiling quickly.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The MI350X has a 3 nm process node, while the 8040S uses 4 nm. Both come from TSMC. The MI350X's die is 2380 mm², and the 8040S's is 308 mm². The MI350X has 185,000 million transistors, and the 8040S's count is unknown.

Clock speeds differ. The MI350X's base clock is 1000 MHz with a 2200 MHz boost. The 8040S's base clock is 1295 MHz with a 2800 MHz boost. Memory clocks are listed only for the MI350X at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the 8040S uses system-shared memory.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ: 16,384 versus 1,024 shading units, 1,024 versus 64 TMUs, and 0 versus 32 ROPs. The MI350X has no RT cores, and the 8040S has 16. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI350X and 89.60 GPixel/s for the 8040S. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 179.2 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 72.09 TFLOPS versus 5.734 TFLOPS.

Power consumption differs by an order of magnitude. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 8040S has a TDP of 55 W with no suggested PSU listed. The MI350X is an OAM module, and the 8040S is an IGP. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and have no power connectors. The MI350X has no display outputs, and the 8040S's outputs are portable-device dependent.

Release dates differ. The 8040S was released on 2025-01-05, and the MI350X on 2025-06-11. The MI350X's predecessor is Radeon Instinct, and the 8040S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile. The 8040S has an active production status, while the MI350X's status is not recorded. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, and the 8040S has no recorded dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in FP32, while the AMD Radeon 8040S delivers 5.734 TFLOPS, a roughly 12.6-fold difference in favor of the MI350X.

Q: Does the Radeon 8040S support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 8040S includes 16 RT cores. The Instinct MI350X has no RT cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each part?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 8040S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon 8040S has a TDP of 55 W, while the Instinct MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 8040S consumes far less power per unit of compute, though it also delivers far less absolute performance.

Q: Can the Instinct MI350X output video?

A: No, the MI350X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The 8040S has display outputs that are portable-device dependent.

Q: How does the Radeon 8040S rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The 8040S holds a 17th percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 2,440. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, averages 2,433 points, putting the 8040S 0.3% ahead.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two parts into entirely different use cases. The AMD Instinct MI350X is a compute accelerator with 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, and a 1000 W TDP. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no pixel rate. Every specification points to data-center workloads, large model inference, and high-throughput compute where memory capacity and raw FLOPs dominate.

The AMD Radeon 8040S is an integrated graphics processor with 5.734 TFLOPS of FP32, 16 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 55 W TDP. It has a pixel rate of 89.60 GPixel/s and 32 ROPs, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. It ranks at the 17th percentile among all GPUs and sits within 1.1% of its nearest rivals, all of which are entry-level parts from previous generations.

The choice is clear from the data. A system needing display output, ray tracing, or graphics API compatibility must use the Radeon 8040S, as the MI350X offers none of those capabilities. A workload demanding large memory capacity, extreme memory bandwidth, or multi-teraflop compute throughput must use the Instinct MI350X, as the 8040S's system-shared memory and single-digit TFLOPS cannot approach that class of performance. There is no overlap in their recorded capabilities.