AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 and AMD Radeon 8050S are both 89th-percentile GPUs, but they achieve that standing through opposite strategies. The Pro Vega 56 is an older, power-hungry discrete-class part with a massive memory bus, while the 8050S is a modern, efficient integrated processor. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the 8050S wins in OpenCL by 5.9%, while the Pro Vega 56 dominates Vulkan by 13%. Neither card is a clear overall victor, and the choice hinges entirely on workload and platform priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests reveal a fundamental performance split. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 8050S scores 65,818 against the Pro Vega 56’s 61,930, a 5.9% advantage for the newer part. This is a notable margin, especially considering the 8050S operates within a 55 W power envelope compared to the Pro Vega 56’s 210 W. The OpenCL result aligns with the 8050S’s higher raw compute throughput: 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 versus 8.960 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 56. That 28% theoretical compute lead translates into a measurable, though smaller, real-world benchmark win.

The Vulkan test tells the opposite story. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 66,004, while the 8050S manages only 58,398. That is a 13% victory for the Vega-based card, a substantial reversal from the OpenCL result. The Pro Vega 56’s Vulkan strength likely stems from its mature GCN 5.0 driver stack and its dedicated 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. In contrast, the 8050S relies on System Shared memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth variability that can cripple graphics-heavy API workloads. The delta is stark enough that any Vulkan-focused application would clearly prefer the Pro Vega 56.

Looking at average scores across all benchmarks, the Pro Vega 56 edges ahead with 63,693 versus the 8050S’s 62,108. That 2.5% gap (as reflected in the 8050S’s rival list, where the Pro Vega 56 is listed with a -2.5 deltaPct) is small but consistent with the Pro Vega 56’s broader benchmark coverage. Notably, the Pro Vega 56 has three benchmark entries (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the 8050S lacks a Metal score. The Pro Vega 56’s Metal result of 63,145 is its second-best score, suggesting the card performs well across multiple API ecosystems, whereas the 8050S is only tested on two.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8050S wins in compute-heavy, general-purpose workloads. Its OpenCL victory and higher FP32 throughput (11.47 TFLOPS) make it the better choice for tasks that leverage raw shader math, such as physics simulations, video encoding, or machine learning inference that runs on OpenCL. The 8050S also benefits from a massive clock speed advantage: its boost clock reaches 2800 MHz versus the Pro Vega 56’s 1250 MHz, more than double. Even with fewer shading units (2048 versus 3584), the 8050S’s clock speed compensates, resulting in higher pixel rate (179.2 GPixel/s versus 80.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (358.4 GTexel/s versus 280.0 GTexel/s). For rasterization-heavy tasks that aren’t API-sensitive, the 8050S’s fill rates are superior.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 wins in graphics API-bound scenarios, particularly Vulkan. Its 13% Vulkan lead is decisive and points to a mature driver implementation for that API. The Pro Vega 56 also holds a substantial memory advantage: 8 GB of dedicated HBM2 with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the 8050S’s system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. This makes the Pro Vega 56 better for applications that require large, fast local memory pools, such as high-resolution texture streaming or CAD workloads with massive geometry buffers. Additionally, the Pro Vega 56’s average benchmark score (63,693) is higher than the 8050S’s (62,108), indicating it is the stronger overall performer across the tests it has in common.

The 8050S counters with a 5.9% OpenCL win, but that single victory is narrower than the Pro Vega 56’s 13% Vulkan triumph. The Pro Vega 56 also has a higher average score, and its nearest rivals (RX 7600M at 63,775, RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830) are all within 0.8% of its average, showing it sits in a competitive cluster. The 8050S, by contrast, trails those same rivals by 2.6% to 2.7%, per its nearestRivals data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This is a large, power-hungry design: 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The 8050S, in contrast, uses the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process. Its die is smaller at 308 mm², and while transistor count is listed as unknown, the 4 nm node implies significantly tighter packing. The 8050S is part of the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, while the Pro Vega 56 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The Pro Vega 56 packs 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 8050S has fewer shading units (2048) and TMUs (128), but matches the 64 ROPs. The 8050S adds 32 ray tracing cores, which the Pro Vega 56 lacks entirely. This is a generational leap: RDNA 3.5 includes hardware RT support, while GCN 5.0 predates it. The 8050S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Pro Vega 56 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory architecture is the most striking difference. The Pro Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 8050S uses system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. This makes the 8050S’s memory performance entirely contingent on the host system’s RAM configuration, a major variable. Clock speeds also diverge: the Pro Vega 56 runs at 1138 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost, while the 8050S runs at 1295 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The 8050S’s FP16 performance is 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Pro Vega 56 achieves 17.92 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), indicating the older card is better at half-precision compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has an average benchmark score of 63,693, compared to the 8050S’s 62,108, a 2.5% difference in favor of the Pro Vega 56.

Q: Is the Radeon 8050S faster in Vulkan?

A: No. The Pro Vega 56 scores 66,004 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the 8050S scores 58,398, giving the Pro Vega 56 a 13% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon 8050S support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 8050S includes 32 ray tracing cores, whereas the Pro Vega 56 has none. The 8050S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Pro Vega 56 has a TDP of 210 W, while the 8050S has a TDP of 55 W. Both are listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width with no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro Vega 56 has 402.4 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The 8050S uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same generation?

A: No. The Pro Vega 56 is from the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation, released in 2017, while the 8050S is from the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, released in 2025.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 | AMD Radeon 8050S |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Vega 10 | Strix Halo |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 308 mm² |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1138 MHz | 1295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz | 2800 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 224 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| RT Cores | none | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 80.00 GPixel/s | 179.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 280.0 GTexel/s | 358.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.960 TFLOPS | 11.47 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1) | 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 210 W | 55 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-08-13 | 2025-01-05 |

| Predecessor | none | Polaris Mobile |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. If the priority is raw compute throughput in OpenCL environments, the AMD Radeon 8050S is the better pick. It delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP32, a 5.9% OpenCL win, and does so at 55 W with modern PCIe 5.0 connectivity and ray tracing support. The 8050S’s higher boost clock (2800 MHz) and superior fill rates (179.2 GPixel/s, 358.4 GTexel/s) make it a compelling choice for compute-heavy tasks where power efficiency matters.

However, for graphics API-specific performance, particularly Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the superior card. Its 13% Vulkan lead is the largest margin in any benchmark, and its dedicated 8 GB HBM2 memory with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth provides a stable, high-speed memory pool that system-shared memory cannot match. The Pro Vega 56 also has a higher average benchmark score (63,693 vs 62,108), placing it in a stronger competitive position against its nearest rivals.

The architectural gap is decisive for future-facing features: the 8050S’s RDNA 3.5 with 32 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support is generations ahead of GCN 5.0. The Pro Vega 56 is end-of-life, while the 8050S is active. For anyone building a new system, the 8050S’s 4 nm process, PCIe 5.0 interface, and 55 W TDP make it the more sensible long-term investment, provided the software stack leans OpenCL. But for Vulkan-centric workloads or applications that demand large, fast local memory, the Pro Vega 56 remains a formidable, if older, option. The final choice is not about which is better overall—it is about which API and memory model matches the intended use.