AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 8050S compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 in raw compute performance?

A: The Radeon 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. That places the 8050S roughly 45% higher in peak single-precision throughput, based on the recorded specifications.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 8050S uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Radeon 8050S sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Radeon PRO W7400 sits at the 50th percentile. The 8050S also has an average benchmark score of 62,108, while the PRO W7400 has no recorded average score due to an empty benchmark list.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 8050S uses a 4 nm TSMC process with a 308 mm² die. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with a 204 mm² die and 13,300 million transistors.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing and the same API feature levels?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the 8050S has 32 ray tracing cores while the PRO W7400 has 28.

Q: How do the nearest rivals rank relative to the Radeon 8050S?

A: The Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896 (0.3% below the 8050S), the Radeon Pro Vega 56 averages 63,693 (2.5% above), the Radeon RX 7600M averages 63,775 (2.6% above), and the Radeon RX 9060 XT LP averages 63,830 (2.7% above).

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into distinct roles. The AMD Radeon 8050S is an integrated graphics solution built on RDNA 3.5, using the Strix Halo chip, and it posts a strong average benchmark score of 62,108 with an 89th percentile ranking. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete single-slot workstation card on RDNA 3.0 with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, but it has no recorded benchmarks in the database, leaving its measured performance unknown.

For raw compute, the 8050S wins outright on FP32, texture rate, pixel rate, and ray tracing core count. Its 11.47 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS represents a 45% advantage in peak FP32. Its pixel rate of 179.2 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 358.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s indicate a substantially faster fill-rate profile. The 8050S also uses a newer 4 nm process and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, compared to the PRO W7400's 6 nm process and PCIe 4.0 x8.

The PRO W7400 counters with dedicated memory: 8 GB GDDR6 at 172.8 GB/s, a fixed 128-bit bus, and a 1350 MHz memory clock at 10.8 Gbps effective. The 8050S shares system memory, making its bandwidth dependent on the host platform. The PRO W7400 is also a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the 8050S is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs.

The verdict from the data: the 8050S is the stronger compute performer and the better choice where processing throughput, fill rates, and modern architecture matter. The PRO W7400 is the choice where dedicated VRAM, fixed bandwidth, and a discrete single-slot form factor are required, but its actual performance cannot be verified from the database because no benchmark scores exist for it.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database lists no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. However, the 8050S has two recorded Geekbench scores. Its OpenCL score is 65,818 and its Vulkan score is 58,398. These produce an average benchmark score of 62,108. The PRO W7400 has an empty benchmark list, an average score of 0, and no nearest rivals, so no direct numerical comparison can be drawn from measured tests.

The nearest rivals to the 8050S provide context. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has an average score of 61,896, which is 0.3% below the 8050S. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 averages 63,693, which is 2.5% above. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M averages 63,775, 2.6% above, and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP averages 63,830, 2.7% above. These deltas show the 8050S clustering tightly with a set of mobile and low-profile discrete GPUs, within a narrow 3% band.

In the absence of direct head-to-head benchmarks, the specification-level deltas carry the analysis. The 8050S has 2,048 shading units versus 1,792 on the PRO W7400, a 14% higher count. Its 128 TMUs versus 112 gives a 14% advantage there. The ROP count is equal at 64. The 8050S has 32 ray tracing cores versus 28 on the PRO W7400, a 14% advantage as well.

The FP32 gap is larger than the core count gap. The 8050S reaches 11.47 TFLOPS while the PRO W7400 reaches 7.885 TFLOPS. That 45% difference comes not only from more cores but also from the 8050S's 2800 MHz boost clock versus the PRO W7400's 1100 MHz boost clock. The base clocks differ similarly: 1295 MHz versus 330 MHz. The PRO W7400's low base clock is typical of a workstation card tuned for sustained loads, but the recorded boost clock still leaves a large frequency gap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable category except TDP and API support. Both are rated at 55 W, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have 64 ROPs. Beyond those points, the records diverge.

Process node: 4 nm on the 8050S, 6 nm on the PRO W7400. Die size: 308 mm² versus 204 mm². The PRO W7400 lists 13,300 million transistors and a transistor density of 65.2M / mm²; the 8050S lists its transistor count as unknown. The 8050S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 28 ray tracing cores.

Clocks differ sharply. The 8050S runs at 1295 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, with system-shared memory. The PRO W7400 runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, with memory at 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective. The memory itself differs: system shared versus 8 GB GDDR6, with the PRO W7400 using a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth versus the 8050S's system-dependent bandwidth.

Form factor and connectivity: the 8050S is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, using PCIe 5.0 x16. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot card, 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, with no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and PCIe 4.0 x8. Release dates also differ: the 8050S launched on 2025-01-05, the PRO W7400 on 2025-08-02. The 8050S lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor; the PRO W7400 lists Radeon Pro Vega.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip built on RDNA 3.5, placed in the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. Its die is 308 mm² on TSMC's 4 nm node. It integrates 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its FP16 throughput matches FP32 at 11.47 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The architecture relies on system-shared memory, meaning the memory bus, size, and bandwidth are all platform-dependent rather than fixed properties of the GPU.

The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, built on RDNA 3.0 and placed in the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Its die is 204 mm² on TSMC's 6 nm node, containing 13,300 million transistors at a density of 65.2M per mm². It packs 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. FP16 again matches FP32 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This architecture uses dedicated GDDR6 memory: 8 GB on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

The architectural split is therefore clear. The 8050S represents the newer RDNA 3.5 design on a smaller 4 nm process with a larger die and higher core counts. The PRO W7400 represents RDNA 3.0 on a larger 6 nm node with a smaller die and lower core counts. Both share the same API feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 8050S's memory architecture is flexible but variable; the PRO W7400's is fixed and discrete. The two also differ in bus interface, with PCIe 5.0 x16 on the 8050S versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the PRO W7400.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 8050S wins in compute throughput. Its 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 is 45% above the PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 358.4 GTexel/s more than doubles the PRO W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 179.2 GPixel/s is more than double the 70.40 GPixel/s of the PRO W7400. The 8050S also carries more shading units, more TMUs, more ray tracing cores, a higher boost clock, and a smaller 4 nm process node. Its average benchmark score of 62,108 and 89th percentile ranking confirm strong measured performance, though those numbers come from the 8050S alone and not from a direct comparison.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in memory determinism and workstation form factor. It provides 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a fixed 172.8 GB/s bandwidth and a 128-bit bus. The 8050S depends on system memory, so its bandwidth and capacity vary with the host platform. The PRO W7400 is a discrete single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for multi-display workstation setups. It also has a defined physical footprint: 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. Its suggested PSU of 250 W gives a concrete system requirement, whereas the 8050S as an IGP draws from the host platform with no separate power connector.

In terms of measured results, the 8050S has data and the PRO W7400 does not. The 8050S's nearest rivals, including the Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 and the Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63,693, bracket its average score of 62,108. The PRO W7400 has no nearest rivals and no benchmark scores, so its standing cannot be established from the database.

For integrated, high-throughput compute with modern RDNA 3.5 features and a 4 nm process, the 8050S wins. For a discrete, single-slot workstation card with dedicated VRAM, fixed bandwidth, and multiple DisplayPort outputs, the PRO W7400 wins. The choice depends on whether the workload prioritizes raw measured compute or dedicated memory and form-factor stability.