AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 8050S and the AMD Radeon 840M are both RDNA 3.5 integrated graphics solutions, but the data places them in entirely different performance tiers. The 8050S records an average benchmark score of 62,108, placing it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M sits in the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The 8050S is the clear choice for any workload requiring substantial graphics throughput, and the 840M serves the low-power segment where its 15 W TDP and minimal resource footprint are the priority. Users who need playable frame rates or compute-heavy tasks should select the 8050S. Users who prioritize battery life and light duty graphics in a thin portable chassis should select the 840M.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.5 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The similarities stop there. The 8050S is built on the Strix Halo chip and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, while the 840M uses the Krackan Point chip from the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The 8050S carries a die size of 308 mm², whereas the 840M's die size is not recorded. The 8050S integrates 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 840M integrates 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. That is an 8x difference in shading units, an 8x difference in TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. The 8050S also supports a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both GPUs expose identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has dedicated tensor cores. The 8050S lists its predecessor as Polaris Mobile, and the 840M lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S records an average benchmark score of 62,108, while the AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The 8050S has 2,048 shading units, which is 8 times the 256 shading units found in the 840M.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 8050S has a TDP of 55 W, and the 840M has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What memory configuration do they use?

A: Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and a system-shared bus width. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is higher than the 8050S's boost clock of 2800 MHz.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ across nearly every compute and interface field. The process node is identical at 4 nm, and both are manufactured by TSMC. The architectures are both RDNA 3.5. Beyond those shared traits, the differences are substantial.

The 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip, the 840M uses the Krackan Point chip. The 8050S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, the 840M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Die size for the 8050S is 308 mm²; die size for the 840M is unknown. Base clock for the 8050S is 1295 MHz versus 400 MHz for the 840M. Boost clock for the 8050S is 2800 MHz versus 2900 MHz for the 840M. Shading units are 2048 versus 256. TMUs are 128 versus 16. ROPs are 64 versus 8. Ray tracing cores are 32 versus 4. Pixel rate for the 8050S is 179.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M. Texture rate for the 8050S is 358.4 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M. FP32 compute for the 8050S is 11.47 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M. FP16 performance is 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 55 W versus 15 W. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both. Release dates differ: the 8050S was released on 2025-01-05, the 840M on 2025-02-28. The 8050S lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor, the 840M lists Navi II IGP. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the two GPUs, and the 840M has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The comparison must therefore rely on the 8050S's recorded benchmark results and its position among rivals, alongside the raw specification deltas.

The 8050S scores 65,818 in Geekbench OpenCL and 58,398 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 62,108 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database frame its standing clearly. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896, which is 0.3% lower than the 8050S. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 averages 63,693, which is 2.5% higher than the 8050S. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M averages 63,775, which is 2.6% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP averages 63,830, which is 2.7% higher. The 8050S sits within a narrow 3 percentage point band around these mobile and workstation parts, confirming it performs at the upper middle tier of recorded GPUs.

The 840M holds no recorded scores and no rival entries. Its percentile rank of 50 indicates a median position, but without measured results the database cannot establish a numeric margin between the two. The specification gap is the only quantitative bridge. The 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 7.7 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the 840M. The pixel rate of 179.2 GPixel/s is roughly 7.7 times the 23.20 GPixel/s of the 840M. The texture rate of 358.4 GTexel/s is roughly 7.7 times the 46.40 GTexel/s of the 840M. Every throughput metric scales by approximately the same factor because the core counts scale by 8x while the boost clock on the 840M is slightly higher. The 840M's higher boost clock of 2900 MHz partially offsets the core deficit, but not enough to close the gap.

The 8050S's nearest rivals all sit within 2.7% of its average score, which indicates the recorded measurements place it in a tightly contested performance cluster. The 840M, by contrast, has no measured position to compare. The 8050S also carries a 55 W TDP against the 840M's 15 W TDP, a 40 W difference that explains the substantial resource allocation in the larger chip.

Where Each One Wins

The 8050S wins every measured and derived compute category in the recorded data. Its FP32 throughput of 11.47 TFLOPS dwarfs the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, making it the appropriate choice for 3D rendering, GPU compute, and any workload that scales with shading unit count. Its 32 ray tracing cores versus 4 in the 840M gives it a clear advantage in ray-traced rendering workloads. Its 64 ROPs versus 8 gives it a large edge in pixel fill rate, recorded at 179.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, which matters for high resolution rasterization. Its 128 TMUs versus 16 gives it a texture throughput advantage of 358.4 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane count and a newer generation versus the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters for system-shared memory access patterns. Its 89th percentile rank versus the 840M's 50th percentile rank reinforces its position among all recorded GPUs.

The 840M wins the efficiency and integration categories. Its 15 W TDP is 40 W lower than the 8050S's 55 W TDP, making it the better choice for fanless or low-power designs where thermal and battery constraints dominate. Its higher boost clock of 2900 MHz versus 2800 MHz indicates it can reach a slightly higher peak frequency when power allows, though its smaller core configuration limits the practical impact. Its Krackan Point chip and later release date of 2025-02-28 versus 2025-01-05 suggest a newer product entry in the database. For portable devices where light graphics acceleration, video output, and low power draw are the primary requirements, the 840M is the appropriate selection. For any workload where raw graphics performance is the deciding factor, the 8050S is the only choice supported by the data.