AMD Radeon 8050S vs AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 8050S compare to the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT in OpenCL performance?

A: The RX 6900 XT is decisively ahead, scoring 187,673 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 65,818 for the Radeon 8050S, a 64.9% advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan workloads?

A: The RX 6900 XT wins again, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 148,525 compared to 58,398 for the Radeon 8050S, a 60.7% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Radeon 8050S has an average benchmark score of 62,108, while the RX 6900 XT averages 50,951. The Radeon 8050S actually holds the higher average across all recorded tests, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: How do their percentile rankings differ?

A: The Radeon 8050S sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6900 XT ranks at the 86th percentile.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each?

A: The Radeon 8050S is rated at 55 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the RX 6900 XT is a triple-slot card rated at 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: What are the release dates and production statuses?

A: The Radeon 8050S launched on January 5, 2025, and is currently active in production. The RX 6900 XT launched on October 27, 2020, and is now end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 8050S and the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT come from different architectural generations and are built for fundamentally different purposes. The Radeon 8050S uses the Strix Halo chip based on RDNA 3.5, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process with a die size of 308 mm². It belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. The RX 6900 XT, by contrast, uses the Navi 21 chip based on RDNA 2.0, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with a much larger 520 mm² die and 26,800 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The Radeon 8050S has an unknown transistor count.

The compute resource gap is substantial. The Radeon 8050S packs 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation pipelines, and 32 ray tracing cores. The RX 6900 XT more than doubles most of these: 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 80 ray tracing cores. This explains the large raw throughput differences. The Radeon 8050S delivers 11.47 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 11.47 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 6900 XT reaches 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 46.08 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). In texture fill rate, the RX 6900 XT outputs 720.0 GTexel/s versus 358.4 GTexel/s for the Radeon 8050S, and pixel rates are 288.0 GPixel/s versus 179.2 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs entirely. The Radeon 8050S relies on system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The RX 6900 XT has dedicated 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6900 XT's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the Radeon 8050S has no dedicated memory clock.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Radeon 8050S runs a 1295 MHz base clock and boosts to 2800 MHz. The RX 6900 XT has a higher base of 1825 MHz but a lower boost of 2250 MHz, with a game clock of 2015 MHz. The Radeon 8050S uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6900 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RX 6900 XT is a triple-slot card measuring 267 mm long, 120 mm high, and 50 mm wide, with two 8-pin power connectors. The Radeon 8050S is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RX 6900 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two directly comparable benchmark results for these GPUs, and in both, the RX 6900 XT dominates. The largest margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6900 XT scores 187,673 against the Radeon 8050S's 65,818, a 64.9% delta. This is consistent with the RX 6900 XT's far higher shading unit count and dedicated memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6900 XT again wins, posting 148,525 versus 58,398, a 60.7% advantage. The Radeon 8050S still produces a respectable Vulkan result for an integrated part, but it trails by nearly two-thirds in both API tests.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The Radeon 8050S has an average benchmark score of 62,108 across all recorded tests, while the RX 6900 XT averages 50,951. This is because the RX 6900 XT's average is pulled down by a wide set of legacy tests, including low Passmark scores in DirectX 9 (268), DirectX 10 (167), DirectX 11 (279), and DirectX 12 (113), as well as a Passmark G2D score of 1,055. The RX 6900 XT's Passmark G3D score is 26,732 and its GPU compute score is 14,547, but those do not offset the older DirectX results in the average. The Radeon 8050S, with only two benchmark entries in the database, benefits from a cleaner average.

The nearest rival data puts both cards in context. The Radeon 8050S's closest competitors are the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (2.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (2.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (2.7% ahead). The RX 6900 XT's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA CMP 50HX (1.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (1.9% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (2% behind), and the Intel Arc A550M (2.4% behind). The RX 6900 XT holds a 2% edge over the RTX 5070 Ti and a 1.9% edge over the RX Vega 64, while the Radeon 8050S trades blows within a narrow 3% band around its average.

The data indicates the Radeon 8050S is competitive with mid-range discrete GPUs from recent generations, while the RX 6900 XT, despite its age, remains a high-end performer in modern API tests. The RX 6900 XT's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,079 further confirms its contemporary relevance, and its Geekbench Metal score of 177,021 shows strong cross-platform compute capability.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the use case, and the data makes that split clear. For raw performance in modern compute and graphics workloads, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT is the superior product. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by wide margins: 64.9% in OpenCL and 60.7% in Vulkan. Its 512.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth, 5,120 shading units, and 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 throughput put it in a different performance class. The RX 6900 XT also holds a 2% edge over the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti in average score, indicating it still competes with newer high-end hardware.

For integrated and mobile systems, the AMD Radeon 8050S is the only viable option of the two, given that it is an IGP with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors. Its 89th percentile ranking actually exceeds the RX 6900 XT's 86th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 62,108 is higher than the RX 6900 XT's 50,951. The Radeon 8050S also benefits from a newer 4 nm process, a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz, and PCIe 5.0 support. It is competitive with the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, sitting just 0.3% ahead, and within 2.7% of the RX 9060 XT LP.

The RX 6900 XT is a triple-slot, 300 W card requiring a 700 W PSU and two 8-pin connectors, so it is not suited to compact or power-constrained builds. The Radeon 8050S, by contrast, fits into portable devices with system-dependent memory and display outputs. Users who need maximum frame rates and compute throughput in a desktop should choose the RX 6900 XT. Users who need a capable integrated GPU for a laptop or small form factor system should choose the Radeon 8050S. There is no overlap in their intended deployment scenarios, and the benchmark data reinforces that separation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 8050S | AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Die Size | 308 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistors | Unknown | 26,800 million |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1295 MHz | 1825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 2250 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not listed | 2015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 128 | 320 |

| ROPs | 64 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 80 |

| Pixel Rate | 179.2 GPixel/s | 288.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 358.4 GTexel/s | 720.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 11.47 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1) | 46.08 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 120 mm x 50 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2020-10-27 |

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

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Navi |

| Successor | Not listed | Navi III |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 999 USD |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 89 | 86 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 62,108 | 50,951 |