AMD Radeon 8040S vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full set of PassMark benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 8040S, while the Intel Arc A310E has no recorded benchmark entries. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible, but the available data still allows for a meaningful analysis of where the AMD part stands on its own and how it positions against its nearest rivals.

The Radeon 8040S achieves an average benchmark score of 2440 across all recorded tests. Its strongest result is in PassMark G3D, where it scores 10578, a figure that places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The compute-oriented workload, PassMark GPU Compute, returns a score of 5138, indicating that the chip handles general-purpose compute tasks at roughly half the rate of its peak graphics workload. Legacy DirectX 9 performance is the highest of the API-specific tests at 134, while DirectX 11 scores 80, DirectX 10 scores 48, and DirectX 12 scores 47. The G2D test, which measures 2D graphics acceleration, produces a score of 1052.

The nearest rival data confirms the Radeon 8040S sits in a tight cluster of low-end parts. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M has an average score of 2433, which is 0.3% lower than the Radeon 8040S. The Intel HD Graphics 610 averages 2425, a 0.6% deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2422, trailing by 0.7%. On the other side, the AMD Radeon RX 7400 averages 2467, which is 1.1% ahead of the 8040S. These delta percentages are all within a narrow band, meaning the Radeon 8040S delivers performance essentially equivalent to the other entries in its immediate competitive neighborhood.

The most telling observation from the recorded data is the gap between the Radeon 8040S and the Arc A310E in terms of database representation. The Arc A310E has a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs, which is notably higher than the Radeon 8040S's 17th percentile. However, the Arc A310E has an average benchmark score of 0 and no recorded test results, so the percentile figure likely reflects its specification-based classification rather than measured performance. The Radeon 8040S, by contrast, has actual measured scores across seven separate tests. This means the database contains no evidence that the Arc A310E outperforms the Radeon 8040S in any workload, nor does it show the reverse.

FAQ

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

A: The Radeon 8040S averages 2440. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433 (0.3% lower), the Intel HD Graphics 610 scores 2425 (0.6% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2422 (0.7% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7400 scores 2467 (1.1% higher).

Q: What is the strongest benchmark result for the AMD Radeon 8040S?

A: The highest recorded score is in PassMark G3D at 10578. The GPU Compute test returns 5138, DirectX 9 returns 134, DirectX 11 returns 80, DirectX 10 returns 48, DirectX 12 returns 47, and G2D returns 1052.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310E have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Arc A310E, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. The Radeon 8040S has seven recorded test scores.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S sits in the 17th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc A310E sits in the 50th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S has a pixel rate of 89.60 GPixel/s. The Intel Arc A310E has a pixel rate of 32.00 GPixel/s.

Q: What API support do both GPUs share?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 8040S is the only one of the two with measured performance results. Its average benchmark score of 2440 places it in a cluster of low-end GPUs, all within roughly one percentage point of each other. The Arc A310E has no scores to compare, so no performance verdict can be made in its favor from the database.

The percentile rankings do provide a point of differentiation. The Arc A310E holds a 50th percentile position, while the Radeon 8040S holds a 17th percentile position. This suggests the Arc A310E is classified higher in the overall GPU distribution, but without benchmark data, that ranking cannot be corroborated by actual test results. The Radeon 8040S, despite its lower percentile, has verifiable scores across multiple workloads.

For a user choosing between these two parts, the data supports the Radeon 8040S if measured performance is the priority, since it has concrete results while the Arc A310E has none. For a user who values the higher percentile classification, the Arc A310E has an advantage on paper, but the absence of benchmark scores leaves that advantage unsubstantiated.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 8040S and Intel Arc A310E differ across nearly every hardware specification. The Radeon 8040S has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Arc A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon 8040S also has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A310E has 6.

Clock speeds are a major separation point. The Radeon 8040S runs at a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. Memory configurations are entirely different: the Radeon 8040S uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent, while the Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Pixel and texture throughput differ significantly. The Radeon 8040S delivers 89.60 GPixel/s and 179.2 GTexel/s. The Arc A310E delivers 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also diverges: the Radeon 8040S reaches 5.734 TFLOPS in FP32 and 5.734 TFLOPS in FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Arc A310E reaches 3.072 TFLOPS in FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1 ratio).

Power and physical specifications show further differences. The Radeon 8040S has a TDP of 55 W and is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors. The Arc A310E has a TDP of 75 W, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Arc A310E measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Radeon 8040S has no recorded dimensions.

The bus interface and display outputs also differ. The Radeon 8040S uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has display outputs that are portable device dependent. The Arc A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. Production status and release dates also vary: the Radeon 8040S is active and was released on January 5, 2025, while the Arc A310E is end-of-life and was released on March 31, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon 8040S is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, uses the Strix Halo chip, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 308 mm². The Intel Arc A310E is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, uses the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 157 mm² and 7200 million transistors at a density of 45.9 million per mm².

The transistor count is a notable divergence. The Arc A310E has a recorded 7200 million transistors, while the Radeon 8040S has an unknown transistor count. The die size relationship is also interesting: the Radeon 8040S uses a larger 308 mm² die despite being on a more advanced 4 nm node, while the Arc A310E fits 7200 million transistors into 157 mm².

The memory architecture differs at a fundamental level. The Radeon 8040S relies on system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth and capacity are dependent on the host system. The Arc A310E has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and fixed 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 8040S also has no dedicated memory clock, while the Arc A310E runs its memory at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count and capacity. The Radeon 8040S includes 16 RT cores, while the Arc A310E includes 6. Neither has tensor cores. The Radeon 8040S's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the Arc A310E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. The Arc A310E has a recorded successor in Battlemage, while the Radeon 8040S has none.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8040S wins in measured performance across the board, since it has recorded scores and the Arc A310E has none. In raw throughput, the Radeon 8040S holds clear advantages: it delivers 89.60 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, 179.2 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, and 5.734 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS FP32. It also has more shading units (1024 versus 768), more TMUs (64 versus 32), more ROPs (32 versus 16), and more RT cores (16 versus 6). The Radeon 8040S also has a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz versus the Arc A310E's fixed 2000 MHz.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in specific hardware attributes. It has a higher base clock at 2000 MHz versus 1295 MHz, though its boost clock is lower. It has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a fixed 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon 8040S depends on system memory. The Arc A310E also has a higher FP16 throughput at 6.144 TFLOPS versus 5.734 TFLOPS, though its FP32 is lower. It has a higher percentile ranking at 50 versus 17. The Arc A310E has a smaller die at 157 mm² versus 308 mm², and it carries 7200 million transistors versus an unknown count for the Radeon 8040S. The Arc A310E also features four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the Radeon 8040S's outputs depend on the portable device.

For a workload split, the Radeon 8040S is the stronger choice for rasterization-heavy tasks given its higher pixel and texture rates. It also has an edge in ray tracing hardware with 16 RT cores versus 6. The Arc A310E, with its higher FP16 rate and dedicated memory, could be positioned for compute tasks that benefit from half-precision throughput and consistent memory bandwidth. The Arc A310E's higher percentile suggests it is classified higher in the overall GPU landscape, but the database contains no benchmark results to confirm that classification in practice.