AMD Radeon 8040S vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 8040S and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103. Instead, the comparison relies on the recorded PassMark suite for the AMD part and the specification-derived performance limits for the NVIDIA part. The AMD Radeon 8040S posts a PassMark G3D score of 10,578, a G2D score of 1,052, and a GPU compute score of 5,138. Its DirectX 9 score is 134, DirectX 11 is 80, DirectX 10 is 48, and DirectX 12 is 47. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 2,440, placing it at the 17th percentile of all recorded GPUs.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has no benchmark entries in the database, so its average score is recorded as zero. However, the specification data provides clear performance deltas. The NVIDIA part delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput against 5.734 TFLOPS for the AMD part, a 5.08x advantage. Texture rate stands at 455.4 GTexel/s versus 179.2 GTexel/s, a 2.54x difference. Pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 89.60 GPixel/s, a 1.77x lead. The NVIDIA GPU carries 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, while the AMD part has 16 ray tracing cores and no tensor core field in the database.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive gap. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s. The AMD Radeon 8040S uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning its effective throughput depends entirely on the host platform. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 2,475 MHz versus 2,800 MHz for AMD, though the AMD base clock is lower at 1,295 MHz versus 1,920 MHz.

The nearest recorded rivals for the AMD Radeon 8040S illustrate its standing. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2,433, just 0.3% below the AMD part. The Intel HD Graphics 610 scores 2,425, a 0.6% deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2,422, a 0.7% gap. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 scores 2,467, which is 1.1% above the 8040S. These rivals all sit within roughly a single percentage point, indicating the 8040S occupies a narrow performance band near the low end of the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two GPUs with fundamentally different positioning. The AMD Radeon 8040S is an integrated graphics processor with a 55 W TDP, no dedicated memory, and a 17th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals are entry-level discrete and integrated parts from several generations ago. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 200 W TDP, 12 GB of GDDR6X, and a 50th percentile ranking, exactly at the median of all recorded GPUs.

For users choosing between these two, the data points to the NVIDIA part for any workload involving sustained 3D rendering, ray tracing, or compute throughput. The FP32 delta alone is 5.08x, and the texture rate delta is 2.54x. The memory bandwidth advantage is substantial, with 504.2 GB/s dedicated bandwidth versus a system dependent figure for the AMD part. The RTX 4070 AD103 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, though the NVIDIA interface is the older standard.

The AMD Radeon 8040S suits scenarios where the 55 W power envelope and integrated form factor are priorities. It requires no power connectors, occupies no expansion slot, and its performance sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 710M and GT 710M, both of which are older mobile parts. The database shows the 8040S at 0.3% to 0.7% above those two, and 1.1% below the Radeon RX 7400. This is entry-level performance, appropriate for basic display output and light 2D work, but the compute and texture data do not support expectations of modern gaming or heavy GPU compute.

The RTX 4070 AD103 has an end-of-life production status, while the AMD part is active. The NVIDIA GPU launched with a 599 USD MSRP, a figure recorded once here. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The performance gap is large enough that the choice is not a trade-off but a tier separation: the RTX 4070 AD103 operates in a completely different performance class, while the 8040S competes with integrated graphics from prior years.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 8040S compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 in raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, which is 5.08x the 5.734 TFLOPS of the 8040S. The AMD part also records an FP16 figure of 5.734 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part records 29.15 TFLOPS FP16.

Q: What is the memory situation for each GPU?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The 8040S uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory size or bus width.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S has a boost clock of 2,800 MHz, which is higher than the RTX 4070 AD103 boost clock of 2,475 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock at 1,920 MHz versus 1,295 MHz.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the AMD Radeon 8040S in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2,433 average score (0.3% below), Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2,425 (0.6% below), NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2,422 (0.7% below), and AMD Radeon RX 7400 at 2,467 (1.1% above).

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S is marked as active production. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is marked as end-of-life.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 8040S has a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and is an integrated GPU. The RTX 4070 AD103 has a 200 W TDP, uses one 16-pin power connector, and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Radeon 8040S uses a 4 nm process node, while the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: the NVIDIA AD103 chip has 45,900 million transistors, while the AMD Strix Halo chip has an unknown transistor count. Die size is 308 mm² for AMD and 379 mm² for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has a recorded transistor density of 121.1M per mm².

Shading units are 1,024 for AMD versus 5,888 for NVIDIA. Texture mapping units are 64 versus 184. Raster output units are 32 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 16 versus 46. The NVIDIA part has 184 tensor cores; the AMD part has no tensor core field. Pixel rate is 89.60 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 179.2 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration differs completely: the AMD part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s. The power envelope is 55 W for AMD versus 200 W for NVIDIA. The AMD part is an integrated GPU with no slot width and no power connectors. The NVIDIA part is dual-slot, 240 mm long, 110 mm high, and 40 mm wide, with one 16-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested power supply.

Bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 5.0 x16, NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD, while NVIDIA has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The AMD part has a base clock of 1,295 MHz and boost of 2,800 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base of 1,920 MHz and boost of 2,475 MHz. Release dates are 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2024-02-29 for NVIDIA. The AMD predecessor is Polaris Mobile; the NVIDIA predecessor is GeForce 30. The NVIDIA successor is GeForce 50. The NVIDIA part has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the AMD part has none.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8040S uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Strix Halo chip, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip, part of the GeForce 40 series. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists.

The AMD architecture integrates the GPU into the Strix Halo processor, using system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. This design keeps power at 55 W and eliminates the need for a separate memory bus or power delivery. The NVIDIA architecture uses a discrete GPU with dedicated GDDR6X memory, a 192-bit bus, and a 200 W power envelope. The NVIDIA part includes tensor cores, which the AMD part does not record, and a higher count of ray tracing cores at 46 versus 16.

The process nodes differ: AMD uses 4 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm, both from TSMC. The die size is smaller for AMD at 308 mm² versus 379 mm² for NVIDIA, though the AMD transistor count is unknown while NVIDIA records 45,900 million. The NVIDIA part has a higher transistor density at 121.1M per mm², which follows from the larger die and known transistor count.

The AMD part has no dedicated display outputs, with outputs described as portable device dependent, reflecting its integrated nature. The NVIDIA part provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The AMD part supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The AMD part has no power connectors and no suggested power supply, while NVIDIA requires one 16-pin connector and a 550 W supply.

The architecture differences explain the performance gap: the AMD part is a low-power integrated solution with 1,024 shading units and no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA part is a high-power discrete solution with 5,888 shading units, 184 tensor cores, and dedicated high-bandwidth memory. The 5.08x FP32 advantage and 2.54x texture rate advantage align with the shading unit ratio of 5.75x. The pixel rate advantage is smaller at 1.77x, reflecting the relatively higher ROP count per shading unit on the AMD part. The 8040S has 32 ROPs across 1,024 shading units, while the NVIDIA part has 64 ROPs across 5,888 shading units.