AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it clearly favors the AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT. The RX 6650M XT scores 76,904 points, while the AMD Radeon 8050S scores 65,818 points. That is a 16.8% advantage for the RX 6650M XT in this compute-oriented workload. In practical terms, the RX 6650M XT sits roughly 16.8% ahead of the 8050S in OpenCL performance, a substantial margin for a single benchmark comparison.

However, the 8050S has an additional data point in the database: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 58,398. There is no corresponding Vulkan result for the RX 6650M XT, so a direct head-to-head comparison in that API cannot be made from the recorded data. The OpenCL result remains the sole direct comparison, and it is decisive in favor of the RX 6650M XT.

Relative to the broader GPU landscape, the RX 6650M XT holds a 91st percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the 8050S sits at the 89th percentile. The RX 6650M XT’s average benchmark score across all tests is 76,904, whereas the 8050S’s average is 62,108. This average score includes both the OpenCL and Vulkan results for the 8050S, pulling its average down relative to its OpenCL performance.

Looking at nearest rivals, the RX 6650M XT trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D by 1% (77,712 versus 76,904), sits 2.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT (78,940), and is 3.1% and 3.4% behind the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396) and 16 GB (79,605) respectively. This places the RX 6650M XT in a tight competitive cluster near the top of its range, within a few percentage points of much more expensive and power-hungry parts.

The 8050S, by contrast, leads the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M by a slim 0.3% (61,896), but trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 by 2.5% (63,693), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M by 2.6% (63,775), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP by 2.7% (63,830). These deltas show the 8050S landing in a mid-pack position, competitive with several other AMD mobile GPUs but not leading them.

The benchmark data is unambiguous on one point: in the single shared test, the RX 6650M XT is the faster GPU by a meaningful margin. The 8050S does not win a single recorded head-to-head test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The RX 6650M XT uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This node shrink is significant: moving from 7 nm to 4 nm allows for denser integration and lower power draw per transistor, which is reflected in the power figures below.

The RX 6650M XT has a die size of 237 mm² and contains 11,060 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². The 8050S has a larger die at 308 mm², but its transistor count is listed as unknown in the database, so no density figure can be computed. The larger die for the 8050S is consistent with its integration of more advanced features and a newer architecture, though the exact transistor budget is not recorded.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The RX 6650M XT runs a base clock of 2068 MHz, a game clock of 2162 MHz, and a boost clock of 2416 MHz. The 8050S has a much lower base clock of 1295 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz. This suggests the 8050S is designed to scale aggressively under load, while the RX 6650M XT maintains a higher floor frequency. The 8050S does not list a game clock in the database.

Memory architecture is a fundamental divergence. The RX 6650M XT uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The 8050S, in contrast, uses system shared memory for capacity, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the 8050S relies on the host system’s memory subsystem, which can vary by platform, whereas the RX 6650M XT has fixed, dedicated VRAM.

Both GPUs share identical compute resource counts: 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. This is a notable similarity; the architectural differences do not translate into different raw shader counts. The pixel rate and texture rate differ, however. The RX 6650M XT achieves 154.6 GPixel/s and 309.2 GTexel/s, while the 8050S achieves 179.2 GPixel/s and 358.4 GTexel/s. Despite the RX 6650M XT’s higher clocks in some ranges, the 8050S’s higher boost clock drives faster pixel and texture throughput.

Floating point performance also favors the 8050S. The RX 6650M XT delivers 9.896 TFLOPS FP32 and 19.79 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.47 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The 8050S is roughly 15.9% faster in FP32 (11.47 versus 9.896), but the RX 6650M XT has a substantial FP16 advantage when the 2:1 rate is utilized. The 8050S’s 1:1 FP16 rate means it does not gain a throughput boost for half-precision workloads.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The RX 6650M XT has a TDP of 120 W, while the 8050S has a TDP of 55 W. That is a 65 W difference, meaning the 8050S draws less than half the power of the RX 6650M XT. Both are integrated into portable devices with no power connectors and an IGP slot width. The bus interface also differs: the RX 6650M XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 8050S uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which gives the newer part more than double the raw interface bandwidth.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status differs: the RX 6650M XT is end-of-life, released on January 3, 2022, while the 8050S is active, released on January 5, 2025. Both list Polaris Mobile as their predecessor, and neither has a recorded successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform priorities. For raw compute performance in the single recorded OpenCL benchmark, the RX 6650M XT is the winner by 16.8%. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the 8050S’s 89th percentile reinforces this. If the primary use case is OpenCL compute tasks, the RX 6650M XT is the better choice.

However, the 8050S offers advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture. Its TDP of 55 W is less than half that of the RX 6650M XT’s 120 W. For portable devices where battery life and thermal headroom are critical, this is a decisive factor. The 8050S also delivers higher FP32 throughput (11.47 TFLOPS versus 9.896 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (179.2 GPixel/s versus 154.6 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (358.4 GTexel/s versus 309.2 GTexel/s). In real-time graphics workloads that are shader-bound, the 8050S could outperform the RX 6650M XT despite losing the compute benchmark.

The 8050S’s system shared memory is a double-edged sword. It can be flexible, allowing the GPU to use as much memory as the system provides, but bandwidth becomes system dependent. The RX 6650M XT’s dedicated 256.0 GB/s GDDR6 bandwidth is fixed and predictable. For gaming at high resolutions with large textures, dedicated VRAM is often preferable. For productivity workloads that benefit from large memory pools, the shared approach could be advantageous.

The RX 6650M XT is end-of-life, while the 8050S is active. This matters for driver support and future compatibility. The newer part also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which provides more interface bandwidth than PCIe 4.0 x8, potentially reducing transfer bottlenecks in data-heavy workloads.

In summary: pick the RX 6650M XT if the priority is maximum OpenCL compute performance and fixed dedicated memory. Pick the 8050S if the priority is power efficiency, higher FP32 throughput, newer architecture, and system-integrated memory flexibility. The RX 6650M XT wins the only direct benchmark, but the 8050S wins on architecture and efficiency metrics.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 (RX 6650M XT) versus RDNA 3.5 (8050S)
• Process node: 7 nm versus 4 nm
• Die size: 237 mm² versus 308 mm²
• Transistors: 11,060 million versus unknown
• Transistor density: 46.7M/mm² versus null
• Base clock: 2068 MHz versus 1295 MHz
• Boost clock: 2416 MHz versus 2800 MHz
• Game clock: 2162 MHz versus null
• Memory size: 8 GB GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 128-bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus system dependent
• Pixel rate: 154.6 GPixel/s versus 179.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 309.2 GTexel/s versus 358.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 9.896 TFLOPS versus 11.47 TFLOPS
• FP16: 19.79 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 120 W versus 55 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Production status: end-of-life versus active
• Release date: January 3, 2022 versus January 5, 2025

Identical fields include shading units (2048), TMUs (128), ROPs (64), ray tracing cores (32), DirectX version (12 Ultimate), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.4), slot width (IGP), power connectors (none), display outputs (portable device dependent), and predecessor (Polaris Mobile). Neither lists a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650M XT scores 76,904 points versus 65,818 for the AMD Radeon 8050S, a 16.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 8050S have a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: Yes, the 8050S records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 58,398. The RX 6650M XT does not have a Vulkan score in the database.

Q: How do the power draws compare?

A: The RX 6650M XT has a TDP of 120 W, while the 8050S has a TDP of 55 W, making the 8050S significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The RX 6650M XT delivers 9.896 TFLOPS FP32, while the 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP32, putting the 8050S ahead by roughly 15.9%.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RX 6650M XT is end-of-life, released on January 3, 2022. The 8050S is active, released on January 5, 2025.