AMD Radeon 8040S vs AMD Radeon RX 9050 Comparison

AMD Radeon 8040S and AMD Radeon RX 9050 are two distinct mobile graphics solutions from AMD, separated by architecture generation, intended use case, and performance class. The 8040S is an integrated graphics processor built on the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5, while the RX 9050 is a discrete, dual-slot add-in card based on the Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0. The recorded database shows a stark difference in their benchmark presence: the 8040S has a full set of Passmark scores, while the RX 9050 currently has no recorded benchmark results. This absence of data for the newer card shapes the entire comparison, forcing an analysis based on architectural specifications, raw compute capabilities, and the 8040S’s measured performance against its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, meaning no direct comparative tests exist between these two GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon 8040S, however, has seven recorded Passmark scores, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has zero. This is not a statistical tie; it is a complete lack of measurement for the RX 9050. The 8040S delivers a Passmark G3D score of 10578, a Passmark G2D score of 1052, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 5138. Legacy API tests show 134 in DirectX 9, 80 in DirectX 11, 48 in DirectX 10, and 47 in DirectX 12. The average benchmark score for the 8040S sits at 2440, placing it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs tracked.

Because the RX 9050 has no benchmarks, no direct wins can be assigned to either side. The wins counter shows 0 for both. The only quantitative comparison possible comes from the 8040S’s nearest rivals, which include the NVIDIA GeForce 710M with an average score of 2433 and a delta of 0.3 percent, the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425 (delta 0.6 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422 (delta 0.7 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 7400 at 2467 (delta negative 1.1 percent). The 8040S is effectively tied with these older, low-end parts, sitting slightly above the 710M, HD 610, and GT 710M, while trailing the RX 7400 by 1.1 percent. This places the 8040S in the entry-level segment, far below what the RX 9050’s specifications would suggest, but without measured data, the RX 9050 cannot be positioned on the same score curve.

The raw compute figures offer a clearer divergence. The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the 8040S manages 5.734 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). This is a 1.86 times advantage for the RX 9050 in raw shading throughput. Pixel rate favors the RX 9050 at 166.4 GPixel/s versus 89.60 GPixel/s for the 8040S, a 1.86 times difference. Texture rate, however, shows the 8040S ahead at 179.2 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s for the RX 9050, a 7.7 percent advantage for the integrated part. This is unusual because the 8040S has 64 TMUs and the RX 9050 also has 64 TMUs, but the 8040S’s higher boost clock of 2800 MHz against 2600 MHz drives the texture rate higher. The RX 9050 counters with 64 ROPs versus 32 ROPs on the 8040S, doubling the pixel output capability, yet the texture rate is lower due to clock differences.

Where Each One Wins

The 8040S wins in texture throughput, with 179.2 GTexel/s against 166.4 GTexel/s for the RX 9050. This comes from its boost clock of 2800 MHz, which is 200 MHz higher than the RX 9050’s 2600 MHz boost. The 8040S also has a lower base clock at 1295 MHz versus 1330 MHz, but the boost advantage is what matters for sustained texture work. In terms of power, the 8040S consumes 55 W and uses no power connectors, making it an IGP solution that requires no external power. The RX 9050 draws 92 W and needs a single 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 8040S wins on integration simplicity and lower power draw, but this is not a benchmark win; it is a physical design characteristic.

The RX 9050 wins decisively in pixel rate (166.4 GPixel/s versus 89.60 GPixel/s), FP32 compute (10.65 TFLOPS versus 5.734 TFLOPS), and FP16 compute (10.65 TFLOPS versus 5.734 TFLOPS). The RX 9050 also has dedicated memory: 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 8040S relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth marked as system dependent and memory size marked as system shared. The RX 9050’s 64 ROPs versus 32 ROPs gives it a clear advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads, and its 166.4 GTexel/s, while lower than the 8040S, is still substantial. The RX 9050 supports a game clock of 1920 MHz, a specification absent from the 8040S, indicating a more stable sustained clock for gaming. The RX 9050 also has a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), which the 8040S lacks entirely, as its memory is system dependent.

In terms of API support, both GPUs list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so neither wins on API coverage. The RX 9050 has display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the 8040S’s outputs are portable device dependent, meaning the RX 9050 wins on fixed, known display connectivity. The 8040S has a die size of 308 mm² with unknown transistor count, while the RX 9050 has a die size of 199 mm² with 29,700 million transistors and a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The smaller die with more transistors indicates the RX 9050’s newer RDNA 4.0 architecture is more efficient in packing compute.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Radeon RX 9050 have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The recorded data shows the RX 9050’s benchmark array is empty, with no Passmark tests, no average score, and no nearest rivals. The production status is active, and the release date is 2026-07-27, so it may be a newly listed product without accumulated test results. The 8040S, released on 2025-01-05, has seven recorded scores.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, which is 1.86 times the 8040S’s 5.734 TFLOPS FP32. The RX 9050 also matches this in FP16 at 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1), while the 8040S does 5.734 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Q: How does the 8040S compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The 8040S has an average benchmark score of 2440. It is 0.3 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce 710M (2433), 0.6 percent above the Intel HD Graphics 610 (2425), 0.7 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M (2422), and 1.1 percent below the AMD Radeon RX 7400 (2467). This places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The 8040S uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as system shared or system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more ROPs and what does that affect?

A: The RX 9050 has 64 ROPs, double the 32 ROPs on the 8040S. This gives the RX 9050 a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s versus 89.60 GPixel/s for the 8040S, meaning the RX 9050 can fill more pixels per second in rasterization tasks.

Q: Are there any architectural generations differences that affect performance?

A: The 8040S uses RDNA 3.5 on the Strix Halo chip, while the RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 on the Navi 44 chip. Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but the RX 9050 has a transistor density of 149.2M per mm² on a 199 mm² die, while the 8040S has a 308 mm² die with unknown transistor count.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured specification. The RX 9050 belongs to the Radeon RX 9000 series and uses the Navi 44 chip, while the 8040S uses the Strix Halo chip with no series designation. The architecture differs: RDNA 4.0 for the RX 9050, RDNA 3.5 for the 8040S. The process node is identical at 4 nm and the foundry is TSMC for both, but the die size differs: 308 mm² for the 8040S, 199 mm² for the RX 9050. Transistor count is unknown for the 8040S, while the RX 9050 has 29,700 million transistors and a density of 149.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The 8040S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost of 2800 MHz, with no game clock. The RX 9050 has a base of 1330 MHz, a boost of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 1920 MHz. The 8040S has no dedicated memory clock, while the RX 9050 runs memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Memory configuration is the largest distinction: the 8040S uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 9050’s memory clock is a fixed specification, whereas the 8040S’s memory clock is listed as system shared.

Shading units are equal at 1024, and TMUs are equal at 64. ROPs differ: 32 for the 8040S, 64 for the RX 9050. RT cores are equal at 16. Pixel rate is 89.60 GPixel/s for the 8040S and 166.4 GPixel/s for the RX 9050. Texture rate is 179.2 GTexel/s for the 8040S and 166.4 GTexel/s for the RX 9050. FP32 and FP16 compute are 5.734 TFLOPS for the 8040S and 10.65 TFLOPS for the RX 9050. TDP differs: 55 W for the 8040S, 92 W for the RX 9050. The 8040S is an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width beyond the integrated form factor, while the RX 9050 is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 8040S, while the RX 9050 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a. Release dates differ: 2025-01-05 for the 8040S, 2026-07-27 for the RX 9050. The RX 9050 has a predecessor listed as Navi III, while the 8040S lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor.

Architecture Differences

The 8040S is built on RDNA 3.5, a refinement of the RDNA 3 architecture, using the Strix Halo chip designed for integrated graphics in mobile processors. It has a 4 nm TSMC process, a 308 mm² die, and an unknown transistor count. Its memory is entirely system shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the host system’s memory, with bandwidth dependent on the system configuration. The 8040S’s boost clock of 2800 MHz is the highest among the two, but its compute is limited by the shared memory interface and lower ROP count. The RT cores number 16, matching the RX 9050, but without dedicated memory, ray tracing performance is constrained by memory bandwidth.

The RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0, a newer architecture generation, on the Navi 44 chip. It is also on a 4 nm TSMC process but has a smaller die at 199 mm² with 29,700 million transistors, yielding a density of 149.2M per mm². This higher density indicates a more compact and possibly more efficient design. The RX 9050 has dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is a fixed specification independent of the system. The RX 9050’s boost clock is lower at 2600 MHz, but its game clock of 1920 MHz suggests a stable sustained frequency for gaming workloads. The pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s, driven by 64 ROPs, is nearly double the 8040S’s 89.60 GPixel/s. The texture rate is lower at 166.4 GTexel/s versus 179.2 GTexel/s, but the RX 9050’s higher FP32 compute (10.65 TFLOPS) and dedicated memory make it more capable for compute-heavy tasks. The RX 9050’s power connectors (1x 8-pin) and 92 W TDP indicate a discrete card, while the 8040S’s 55 W TDP and no connectors reflect its integrated nature.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores listed. The RX 9050’s display outputs are fixed (HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a), while the 8040S’s outputs are device dependent. The RX 9050’s memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) is the only fixed memory clock; the 8040S’s memory clock is system shared. The 8040S’s texture rate advantage comes from its 2800 MHz boost clock, but the RX 9050’s higher ROP count and dedicated memory bandwidth compensate in pixel-heavy and memory-intensive scenarios.

The Verdict

The data indicates the AMD Radeon RX 9050 is the stronger performer on paper, with 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth from its 8 GB GDDR6 configuration. These figures are roughly double the 8040S’s FP32 compute and pixel rate, and the 8040S’s system shared memory cannot match the fixed bandwidth of the RX 9050. The 8040S does hold a narrow lead in texture rate (179.2 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s) due to its 2800 MHz boost clock, but this advantage is unlikely to outweigh the RX 9050’s advantages in memory and ROP throughput. The RX 9050 also has a higher TDP at 92 W versus 55 W, which aligns with its discrete dual-slot design and 8-pin power connector.

For users requiring a self-contained, low-power integrated solution with no external power, the 8040S fits that role, with its 55 W TDP and no power connectors. Its benchmark scores, however, place it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs, near the NVIDIA GeForce 710M and Intel HD Graphics 610, indicating entry-level performance. The RX 9050, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be verified in practice, but its architectural specifications suggest a significantly higher performance tier. The 8040S’s release date of 2025-01-05 predates the RX 9050’s 2026-07-27, meaning the RX 9050 is a newer product. The RX 9050’s predecessor is Navi III, while the 8040S’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile, showing a generational leap in the RX 9000 series.

The choice is clear for compute and gaming: the RX 9050, based on its 1.86 times higher FP32 throughput, 2 times higher ROP count, and dedicated 288.0 GB/s memory, is the more capable GPU. The 8040S is suitable for systems where integrated graphics with low power draw are required, but its performance ceiling is capped by shared memory and 32 ROPs. The RX 9050’s lack of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance, but the specification sheet alone positions it well above the 8040S. Users with a 250 W PSU and space for a dual-slot card should expect the RX 9050 to deliver higher frame rates and faster compute, while the 8040S remains a viable option for compact, power-efficient designs.