AMD Radeon 8040S vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison scenario. The AMD Radeon 8040S has a full set of PassMark benchmark scores, while the Intel Arc B770 has no benchmark entries in the database. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, meaning there are no direct comparative measurements between these two specific cards. However, the available data for the Radeon 8040S allows for a meaningful analysis of its position.

The Radeon 8040S delivers a PassMark G3D score of 10578, which places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 2440. The nearest rivals in the database provide context for this figure. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M averages 2433, a delta of 0.3 percent. The Intel HD Graphics 610 averages 2425, a delta of 0.6 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M averages 2422, a delta of 0.7 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 averages 2467, which is 1.1 percent higher than the 8040S. These deltas are all within roughly one percent, indicating that the 8040S sits in a tightly clustered performance band, despite its much higher G3D score. The discrepancy between the G3D score and the average score suggests that the 8040S has strong performance in the G3D test but significantly lower scores in other PassMark tests, pulling its average down.

Breaking down the Radeon 8040S benchmark suite, the PassMark DirectX 9 score is 134, which is its highest API-specific result. The DirectX 11 score is 80, the DirectX 10 score is 48, and the DirectX 12 score is 47. The GPU compute score is 5138, and the G2D score is 1052. The data shows a pattern where the older DirectX 9 workload produces a much higher relative score than the newer DirectX 12 workload. This indicates that the architecture may be optimized for legacy APIs or that driver maturity for newer APIs is still developing. The compute score of 5138 is substantial, suggesting that the 8040S has notable compute throughput even if its graphics API scores are moderate.

Since the Intel Arc B770 has no benchmark scores, no direct wins can be attributed to either card. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero. The analysis must therefore rely on the Radeon 8040S's position relative to its nearest rivals, as the Arc B770's performance profile remains unmeasured in the database.

The Verdict

The database records no benchmark results for the Intel Arc B770, so any verdict based on measured performance must favor the only card with data. The AMD Radeon 8040S, with its PassMark G3D score of 10578 and GPU compute score of 5138, is the only unit in this comparison with recorded performance. However, its average benchmark score of 2440 places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs, which indicates that its overall standing is low despite the strong G3D showing. The nearest rivals, all scoring between 2422 and 2467, confirm that the 8040S's average performance is not competitive with mainstream discrete GPUs.

The Arc B770, by contrast, has a percentileVsAllGpus of 50, which is the median, but this percentile is not supported by any benchmark scores in the database. The percentile figure alone suggests that Intel's card is positioned at the midpoint of all GPUs, but without measurement data, this cannot be verified. The Radeon 8040S has a production status of Active and a release date of January 5, 2025, while the Arc B770 has a release date of December 31, 2025, and no production status. The data implies that the 8040S is a current, shipping product, whereas the Arc B770 may be an upcoming or unverified release.

From a strictly data-driven perspective, the Radeon 8040S is the only card with measurable performance, but its average score is low. The Arc B770 has no scores, so it cannot be recommended on the basis of measured results. The verdict is that the 8040S is a known quantity, albeit a modest one, while the Arc B770 is an unknown quantity in the database. Users seeking a card with verified benchmark data would look to the 8040S, but those expecting high-end performance would find its 17th percentile ranking unimpressive.

FAQ

Q: What is the PassMark G3D score for the AMD Radeon 8040S?

A: The Radeon 8040S records a PassMark G3D score of 10578.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B770 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Arc B770 has an empty benchmarks array, meaning no recorded benchmark scores exist for it.

Q: How does the Radeon 8040S compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7400?

A: The Radeon RX 7400 has an average score of 2467, which is 1.1 percent higher than the 8040S's average of 2440.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Radeon 8040S among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon 8040S is in the 17th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the compute performance of the Radeon 8040S?

A: The Radeon 8040S achieves a PassMark GPU compute score of 5138.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Intel Arc B770?

A: The Arc B770 has a percentileVsAllGpus value of 50, indicating the median, though this is not backed by any benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured specification. The AMD Radeon 8040S uses a Strix Halo chip built on a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc B770 uses a BMG-G31 chip on a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The die sizes differ: the 8040S measures 308 mm², and the B770 measures 368 mm². Transistor counts are unknown for both.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Radeon 8040S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The 8040S uses system-shared memory, while the B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The 8040S's bandwidth is system dependent.

Compute unit counts differ: the 8040S has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The B770 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the 8040S delivers 89.60 GPixel/s and 179.2 GTexel/s, while the B770 delivers 307.2 GPixel/s and 614.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.734 TFLOPS for the 8040S and 19.66 TFLOPS for the B770. FP16 performance is 5.734 TFLOPS (1:1) for the 8040S and 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) for the B770.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The 8040S has a TDP of 55 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The B770 has a TDP of 225 W, is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. Display outputs differ: the 8040S is portable device dependent, while the B770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear. The AMD Radeon 8040S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, with a predecessor of Polaris Mobile. The Intel Arc B770 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation, with a predecessor of Alchemist. The 8040S is built on a 4 nm TSMC node, while the B770 uses a 5 nm TSMC node.

The 8040S's memory architecture is entirely system shared, meaning it relies on the host system's memory for both capacity and bandwidth. The B770 uses dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and a fixed bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. This difference has direct implications for memory-bound workloads, as the B770's dedicated memory provides consistent bandwidth, whereas the 8040S's performance is system dependent.

Shader and geometry throughput differ substantially. The 8040S has 1024 shading units, while the B770 has 4096, a 4x difference. Ray tracing cores are 16 versus 32, respectively. The FP32 rate of 19.66 TFLOPS for the B770 is more than 3x the 8040S's 5.734 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput on the B770 is 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the 8040S offers 5.734 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating that the B770 has dedicated hardware for half-precision workloads, whereas the 8040S does not.

The power envelope tells a story of design intent. The 8040S fits into a 55 W TDP with no power connectors, suited for integrated use in portable devices. The B770 requires 225 W, a dual-slot cooler, and both 6-pin and 8-pin connectors, indicating a discrete, performance-oriented design. The bus interfaces differ: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the 8040S and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the B770, though the B770's dedicated memory may reduce its reliance on bus bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 8040S wins in the category of verified performance. It has a full set of PassMark scores, including a G3D score of 10578 and a compute score of 5138. Its 55 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices where power consumption and space are constrained. The 4 nm process node and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface suggest a modern, efficient design. The 8040S's DirectX 9 score of 134 is its highest API result, indicating that it may handle legacy workloads relatively well.

The Intel Arc B770 wins in raw specification counts. Its 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores far exceed the 8040S's counts. The B770's FP32 rate of 19.66 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 39.32 TFLOPS are multiples of the 8040S's figures. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is a dedicated resource, unlike the 8040S's system-shared memory. The B770's die size of 368 mm² is larger, and its 225 W TDP indicates a higher-performance envelope. The 50th percentile ranking, while unsupported by scores, suggests the B770 is expected to sit at the median of all GPUs, which is far above the 8040S's 17th percentile.

In terms of use cases, the 8040S is positioned for integrated, low-power scenarios in portable devices. Its system-shared memory and lack of power connectors confirm this. The B770 is positioned for discrete, high-throughput workloads, with its dual-slot cooler, dedicated memory, and high TDP. The data shows that the B770 has the specifications for demanding compute and graphics tasks, but without benchmark scores, its actual performance cannot be confirmed. The 8040S, while modest in its average score, has the advantage of being a measured, shipping product. The choice between them depends on whether verified low-power performance or unverified high-end specifications are prioritized.