AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M wins both head-to-head tests. In OpenCL, it scores 31,285 versus 8,822 for the Vega 8, a 71.8% lead. In Vulkan, the 880M scores 40,006 versus 8,134, a 79.7% lead.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Vega 8 has an average benchmark score of 9,221, while the 880M sits at 8,436. Despite losing the head-to-head tests, the Vega 8 has a higher average because its three recorded scores (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) are all within a narrow range, whereas the 880M includes several low Passmark DX scores that pull its average down.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The 880M uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, giving a density of 145.9M per mm². The Vega 8 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding 23.5M per mm².

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Vega 8 boosts at 1100 MHz, whereas the 880M boosts at 2900 MHz. The 880M also has a higher base clock at 400 MHz versus 300 MHz.

Q: Do both support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The 880M also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Vega 8 lists Vulkan 1.3.

Q: How do their shader unit counts compare?

A: The 880M has 768 shading units, while the Vega 8 has 512. The 880M also has 48 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the Vega 8.

Architecture Differences

The Vega 8 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The 880M uses RDNA 3.5, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This node change accounts for the dramatic difference in transistor density: the 880M packs 34,000 million transistors into a 233 mm² die (145.9M per mm²), while the Vega 8 fits 4,940 million into 210 mm² (23.5M per mm²). The 880M's die is only 23 mm² larger, yet it holds nearly seven times as many transistors.

The Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 880M scales this up to 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. More significantly, the 880M introduces 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 8. This positions the 880M as a modern API-ready part, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Vega 8 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The Vega 8 runs a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz, while the 880M starts at 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. That boost frequency is nearly triple the Vega 8's. The 880M's FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS dwarfs the Vega 8's 1,126.4 GFLOPS. The 880M also delivers 46.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s for the Vega 8.

Both parts use system-shared memory, so bandwidth is system dependent. The 880M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Vega 8 uses an IGP bus interface. The 880M has a lower TDP of 15 W compared to the Vega 8's 25 W, a notable efficiency gain from the newer process. The Vega 8 is end-of-life, released in February 2018, while the 880M is active, released in July 2024.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 880M posts 31,285 versus the Vega 8's 8,822. That is a 71.8% margin, meaning the 880M delivers roughly 3.5 times the raw compute score. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 79.7%: the 880M scores 40,006, while the Vega 8 manages 8,134. The 880M is nearly five times faster in Vulkan.

These results align with the architectural differences. The 880M has 50% more shading units (768 versus 512), a much higher boost clock (2900 MHz versus 1100 MHz), and double the ROPs (16 versus 8). The Vega 8 cannot compensate for that combined advantage in compute-bound workloads. The 880M's FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS is roughly four times the Vega 8's 1,126.4 GFLOPS, and the benchmark deltas reflect that scaling.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Vega 8's average is 9,221, placing it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The 880M's average is 8,436, at the 43rd percentile. This is because the 880M's benchmark suite includes Passmark tests where it scores low: 31 in DirectX 10, 73 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 12, and 97 in DirectX 9. Those low scores drag its average below the Vega 8, even though the 880M wins every modern API test. The Vega 8's three scores (10,706 Metal, 8,822 OpenCL, 8,134 Vulkan) are more consistent.

Interpreting the rivalry data, the Vega 8 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (delta -0.6%) and GTX 465 (delta -0.8%), while the 880M trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (delta 0.1%) and GTX 850M-class parts. The 880M's nearest rival, the GTX 675MX, scores 8,427, just 0.1% below the 880M. This places the 880M in a lower performance tier than the Vega 8, despite winning the head-to-head, because the recorded benchmark mix favors the older part.

The Verdict

The data presents a split verdict. If the priority is raw compute in modern APIs, the AMD Radeon 880M is the clear choice. It wins both head-to-head tests by overwhelming margins (71.8% in OpenCL, 79.7% in Vulkan), offers ray tracing support, and does so at a lower 15 W TDP versus 25 W. The 880M is also an active product with current driver support, whereas the Vega 8 is end-of-life.

If the priority is overall benchmark consistency, the Vega 8 edges ahead. Its average score of 9,221 beats the 880M's 8,436, and it sits at the 45th percentile versus the 880M's 43rd. The Vega 8's nearest rivals include the GTX 960 and GTX 465, both within 1% of its score. The 880M matches the GTX 675MX and MX330, a lower tier of discrete mobile GPUs.

The deciding factor is workload. The 880M's low Passmark DirectX 9/10/11 scores suggest it does not optimize for legacy APIs, while its Vulkan score of 40,006 indicates excellent modern API performance. The Vega 8 handles older and newer APIs more evenly, but at a much lower absolute level. Buyers targeting current games or compute tasks should choose the 880M. Buyers running legacy software or valuing consistent average performance may prefer the Vega 8, though its end-of-life status limits future support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 8 | AMD Radeon 880M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 34,000 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 233 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 145.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.800 GPixel/s | 46.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 35.20 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,126.4 GFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.454 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2024-07-14 |

| Predecessor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Navi II IGP |

| Successor | Vega II IGP | None |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 880M wins in every modern compute scenario. Its OpenCL score of 31,285 and Vulkan score of 40,006 are multiples of the Vega 8's corresponding results. The 12 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the Vega 8 cannot do at all. The 880M also offers a significant efficiency advantage: it delivers roughly four times the FP32 throughput at 60% of the TDP (15 W versus 25 W). This makes it the obvious pick for thin-and-light laptops where power draw matters and software targets DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins on average benchmark score consistency. Its 9,221 average versus the 880M's 8,436 means it performs more uniformly across the recorded test suite. The Vega 8's nearest rival is the GTX 960, a desktop card from a similar era, while the 880M matches the GTX 675MX, a mobile part. If the workload involves DirectX 9, 10, or 11 titles, the Vega 8's scores (97, 31, 73 respectively in the 880M's suite) suggest it handles legacy APIs without the severe drop-off seen in the 880M's Passmark results. The Vega 8 also has a higher percentile ranking (45th versus 43rd), meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU population in the database.

For a practical builder, the choice hinges on software context. New titles and GPU compute favor the 880M decisively. Older games or mixed API environments favor the Vega 8's balance, though its end-of-life status and lower absolute performance make it a stopgap rather than a future-proof option. The 880M is the only part with a defined successor path (none listed), while the Vega 8's successor is the Vega II IGP, indicating a clear generational break.