AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy between these two AMD parts. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 records a score of 92,488, while the AMD Radeon 8050S posts 65,818. That works out to a 40.5% lead for the older, larger card. The gap widens considerably in the Vulkan API test, where the MI60 scores 92,444 against 58,398 for the 8050S, a 58.3% advantage. Both tests go to the Instinct MI60, giving it a 2–0 win count in head-to-head comparisons.

The nearest rivals in the database put these results in context. The MI60’s average benchmark score is 92,466, which places it 0.9% above the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) and 1.5% above the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134). However, it trails the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131) by 4.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487) by 5.2%. The 8050S, by contrast, sits at an average of 62,108, which is a mere 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896) but 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693), 2.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775), and 2.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830). The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the MI60 lands in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 8050S sits in the 89th percentile.

The raw deltas are decisive. In OpenCL, the MI60’s 40.5% advantage is substantial, but the Vulkan result is even more lopsided. A 58.3% gap in Vulkan suggests the MI60’s architecture handles the API’s low-level command structures far more efficiently, or at least its raw compute resources overwhelm the newer part. For workstation users running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the MI60 offers a meaningful uplift; for Vulkan-based rendering or compute, the margin becomes nearly 1.6 times the 8050S’s score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip, built on GCN 5.1 architecture, while the 8050S employs the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5. This is not a generational refinement; it is a fundamental rethinking of how shader work is scheduled. GCN 5.1 relies on a compute-unit layout that scales with raw shading units and memory bandwidth, while RDNA 3.5 introduces a wave32/wave64 execution model with dedicated ray tracing hardware.

The process nodes differ as well. The MI60 is fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the 8050S uses a 4 nm node. The MI60 packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.0M per mm². The 8050S has an unknown transistor count, but its die size is listed at 308 mm², making it slightly smaller than the MI60 despite being on a denser node. The MI60’s die is physically larger, which aligns with its higher compute allocation.

Shading resources diverge sharply. The MI60 carries 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The 8050S halves the shader count to 2,048, keeps TMUs at 128, and retains 64 ROPs. The MI60’s pixel rate is 115.2 GPixel/s, while the 8050S reaches 179.2 GPixel/s, a surprising inversion given the older card’s higher shading count. The texture rate flips back: the MI60 delivers 460.8 GTexel/s, the 8050S only 358.4 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell the rest of the story. The MI60’s base clock is 1200 MHz with a boost of 1800 MHz. The 8050S starts at 1295 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz, a far more aggressive frequency curve that partially compensates for its lower shader count. In floating-point throughput, the MI60 achieves 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.47 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), meaning its FP16 performance does not benefit from the doubled-rate path that the MI60 offers.

Memory is where the cards part ways completely. The MI60 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, providing 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The 8050S uses system shared memory, with its bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. That is a critical distinction: the MI60 has dedicated, ultra-wide memory for compute workloads, while the 8050S is constrained by the host system’s memory subsystem. The MI60’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), whereas the 8050S has no dedicated memory clock at all.

Feature support differs in API coverage. The MI60 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 8050S steps up to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it adds 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI60 lacks entirely. The 8050S also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the MI60 is limited to PCIe 4.0 x16. Power draw is starkly different: the MI60 consumes 300 W with a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup, while the 8050S is an integrated graphics processor at 55 W with no power connectors required.

Where Each One Wins

The MI60 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 make it the obvious choice for heavy numerical workloads, scientific simulations, or machine learning training that relies on FP16 accumulation. The 32 GB HBM2 pool with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage for datasets that exceed the 8050S’s shared memory allocation, and the 4096-bit bus ensures that memory-bound kernels are not starved. OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks both favor the MI60 by large margins, confirming its suitability for compute-heavy tasks where the API is not a bottleneck.

The 8050S wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 55 W TDP is less than one-fifth of the MI60’s 300 W draw, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact desktops where a discrete card is impractical. The ray tracing cores on the 8050S enable hardware-accelerated ray traversal, a feature the MI60 cannot offer at all. Its higher boost clock, 2800 MHz versus 1800 MHz, also gives it better responsiveness in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks. The 8050S’s 179.2 GPixel/s fill rate exceeds the MI60’s 115.2 GPixel/s, which helps in pixel-bound rasterization scenarios.

For gaming, the 8050S has the architectural edge: DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support, ray tracing, and a modern RDNA 3.5 pipeline. The MI60’s GCN 5.1 architecture is functional but dated, and its single mini-DisplayPort output limits multi-monitor setups. The 8050S’s display outputs are portable device dependent, which means it adapts to the host laptop or handheld, offering more flexibility in practice.

For professional compute, the MI60 is the clear winner. Its benchmark scores are 40.5% and 58.3% higher in the two recorded tests, and its memory subsystem is purpose-built for large data sets. The 8050S’s system shared memory is a liability: performance varies with the host’s RAM speed and capacity, whereas the MI60’s HBM2 is fixed and predictable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 with 14.75 TFLOPS, versus 11.47 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon 8050S.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8050S support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 has no ray tracing cores at all.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI60 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The 8050S uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: How do their Vulkan scores compare?

A: The MI60 scores 92,444, which is 58.3% higher than the 8050S’s 58,398.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The 8050S at 179.2 GPixel/s, versus 115.2 GPixel/s for the MI60.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI60 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The 8050S has a 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear split. For anyone running compute workloads, whether OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is the superior part. Its 40.5% OpenCL lead and 58.3% Vulkan lead are not marginal; they represent a generational gap in raw throughput. The 32 GB HBM2 memory with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for large models or datasets that would thrash a shared-memory system. Its 93rd percentile ranking places it above the RTX A4500 and within striking distance of the Radeon Pro VII and RX 7900M. The 300 W power draw is a cost, but for a workstation with a 700 W suggested PSU, that is an acceptable trade.

The AMD Radeon 8050S is the right choice for a different class of user. Its 55 W TDP, integrated form factor, and ray tracing support make it ideal for mobile devices or compact systems where space and power are constrained. The 89th percentile ranking is respectable, and its 0.3% lead over the Pro W6600M shows it is competitive within its mobile peer group. However, its 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 and shared memory architecture mean it cannot match the MI60 in sustained compute. The 8050S also offers PCIe 5.0 and Vulkan 1.4, which are forward-looking, but those features do not close the performance gap.

The verdict is straightforward: professional compute users should pick the MI60, while portable system builders should pick the 8050S. There is no middle ground in the benchmark data. The MI60 wins every recorded test, and its memory and FP16 capabilities extend that advantage into real-world applications. The 8050S wins on efficiency, modern API support, and ray tracing, but those strengths do not translate into higher scores in the database’s measurements. If the workload is compute, the older card is the better card. If the workload is gaming or power-constrained rendering, the newer chip has the architectural features to justify its existence.