AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 8050S and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile graphics, separated by a generational gap in architecture and process technology. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the newer Radeon 8050S holds a clear advantage in the two shared tests, but the older Pro Vega 48 retains specific strengths in memory bandwidth and raw shading throughput that warrant closer examination.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison available in the data covers two cross-platform tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 8050S scores 65,818 points against the Pro Vega 48’s 53,757 points. That is a delta of 22.4 percent, making it the largest single-test victory for either GPU. The margin is substantial enough to place the 8050S in a different performance tier for compute workloads that scale well with modern architecture features.

The Vulkan result is much tighter. The Radeon 8050S scores 58,398 points, while the Pro Vega 48 scores 57,653 points — a delta of just 1.3 percent. This narrow margin suggests that in graphics-API-bound tasks, the older GCN 5.0 design remains competitive. The Pro Vega 48 also has an additional benchmark result in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 69,010 points, a figure that exceeds both of the 8050S’s scores in OpenCL and Vulkan. However, no direct Metal result exists for the 8050S in the FACT PACK, so a like-for-like comparison is not possible.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Radeon 8050S posts 62,108 points across its two results, while the Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 points across three results. The 8050S’s percentile ranking of 89 versus the Pro Vega 48’s 88 reflects this slight overall edge. In the nearestRivals data, the 8050S sits within 0.3 percent of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (61,896 points) and trails the Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693 points) by 2.5 percent. The Pro Vega 48, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326 points) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347 points), both at -0.3 percent, while leading the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657 points) by 2.5 percent.

What the numbers indicate is that the 8050S wins decisively in the one test where architectural efficiency matters most — OpenCL compute — while the Vulkan test shows the Pro Vega 48’s higher shading unit count (3,072 versus 2,048) partially compensates for its older design. The 8050S’s FP32 throughput of 11.47 TFLOPS is 55.6 percent higher than the Pro Vega 48’s 7.373 TFLOPS, which explains the OpenCL gap. In Vulkan, the delta shrinks to 1.3 percent because the Pro Vega 48’s 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 output (at 2:1 ratio) can be leveraged in certain workloads, though the 8050S matches that with its 11.47 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio — meaning it does not gain a doubling advantage from packed math.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon 8050S is the stronger overall GPU for cross-platform compute. It wins both shared head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (62,108 versus 60,140), and ranks one percentile higher (89 versus 88). The 22.4 percent OpenCL lead is the decisive factor; for any workload that relies on OpenCL, the 8050S is clearly the better choice.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is not without merit, however. Its Metal score of 69,010 points is the single highest individual benchmark result between the two GPUs, and it comes from a GPU that is marked as end-of-life. For users locked into Apple’s Metal API — the Pro Vega 48’s generation is “Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series)” — the data suggests it can outperform the 8050S in that specific API, though no direct Metal comparison exists in the FACT PACK.

Choosing between them depends on the API environment. In OpenCL and Vulkan, the 8050S wins. In Metal, the Pro Vega 48’s result is strong, but without a comparable 8050S Metal score, the data cannot confirm superiority. The 8050S also benefits from being an active product with a 2025 release date, whereas the Pro Vega 48 is end-of-life with a 2019 release date. For longevity and modern API support, the 8050S is the safer pick.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is significant and explains most of the performance divergence. The Radeon 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference alone — 4 nm versus 14 nm — accounts for substantial efficiency gains in the newer part.

The die sizes tell a contrasting story. The 8050S measures 308 mm², while the Pro Vega 48 measures 495 mm² — the older chip is 60.7 percent larger physically. Transistor counts flip the expected relationship: the Pro Vega 48 packs 12,500 million transistors versus “unknown” for the 8050S, giving the Pro Vega 48 a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The 8050S’s density is not listed, but the smaller die on a more advanced node implies a higher density per area.

Shading resources differ notably. The Pro Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 ROPs. The 8050S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro Vega 48 leads in raw shading and texturing hardware, yet the 8050S achieves higher FP32 throughput (11.47 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS) and higher pixel rate (179.2 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (358.4 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s). The RDNA 3.5 architecture extracts more work per shader.

Ray tracing is another differentiator. The 8050S includes 32 dedicated RT cores; the Pro Vega 48 has none listed. This means hardware-accelerated ray tracing is available on the 8050S but not on the Pro Vega 48. API support also differs: the 8050S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 48 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The 8050S’s newer API versions enable features the Pro Vega 48 cannot expose.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several clear divergences beyond the architecture. The Radeon 8050S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz; the Pro Vega 48 lists no base or boost clocks in the data. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the 8050S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective).

The 8050S’s memory clock is listed as “System Shared,” making a direct comparison impossible, but the Pro Vega 48’s dedicated 402.4 GB/s bandwidth is a concrete advantage for memory-bound workloads. The bus interface also differs: the 8050S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Pro Vega 48 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The 8050S has a TDP of 55 W; the Pro Vega 48 has no TDP listed. Both are IGP slot-width parts with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FP16 performance shows a philosophical difference. The 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no packed-math acceleration. The Pro Vega 48 delivers 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles throughput when using FP16. In FP32, the 8050S wins outright at 11.47 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS. The Pro Vega 48 also lists its transistor count and density, while the 8050S does not. Production status is Active for the 8050S and End-of-life for the Pro Vega 48.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S averages 62,108 points across two benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 points across three benchmarks.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 8050S scores 65,818 points versus the Pro Vega 48’s 53,757 points, a delta of 22.4 percent in favor of the 8050S.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 48 have any benchmark where it scores higher than the 8050S?

A: The Pro Vega 48 scores 69,010 points in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than the 8050S’s 65,818 OpenCL score and 58,398 Vulkan score, but no Metal result exists for the 8050S in the data.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 8050S uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The Radeon 8050S has 32 RT cores, while the Pro Vega 48 has no RT cores listed, so ray tracing acceleration is exclusive to the 8050S.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon 8050S scores 58,398 points versus the Pro Vega 48’s 57,653 points, a narrow delta of 1.3 percent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8050S wins in OpenCL compute by a wide margin, scoring 22.4 percent higher than the Pro Vega 48. It also wins in Vulkan, though by a slim 1.3 percent. The 8050S further dominates in raw FP32 throughput (11.47 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS), pixel rate (179.2 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s), and texture rate (358.4 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s). It is the only one of the two with RT cores, and its newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it the better choice for modern gaming and compute APIs. Its 55 W TDP and active production status suggest it is designed for current mobile platforms.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 wins in the specific case of Metal API workloads, where its 69,010-point score is the highest individual result in the dataset. It also holds a decisive advantage in memory bandwidth, offering 402.4 GB/s over a 2048-bit HBM2 interface, which benefits memory-heavy tasks that cannot fit in shared memory. Its higher shading unit count (3,072 versus 2,048) and FP16 throughput (14.75 TFLOPS at 2:1) give it theoretical advantages in certain compute patterns, though these do not translate into wins in the shared OpenCL or Vulkan tests. The Pro Vega 48 also has a larger die (495 mm² versus 308 mm²) and more transistors (12,500 million versus unknown), which historically correlates with higher peak compute in specific vendor-optimized libraries.

For users prioritizing cross-platform compute and modern feature support, the 8050S is the data-backed winner. For those in a Metal-centric ecosystem or needing dedicated high-bandwidth memory, the Pro Vega 48’s profile remains relevant despite its end-of-life status.