Radeon 8050S vs PRO W7700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7700 with Radeon 8050S, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7700 outperforms 8050S by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 54 | 130 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.51 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 22.36 | 55.66 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 32 | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2023 (2 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1617 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2153 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 28,100 million | 34,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 413.4 | 358.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.47 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 32 |
| L0 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 130−140 | 94
−27.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.68 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100 | 100 |
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 96 | 96 |
| Far Cry 6 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 118 | 118 |
| Metro Exodus | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 156 | 156 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85 | 85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 92 | 92 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Far Cry 6 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Metro Exodus | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Valorant | 270−280 | 270−280 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 75−80 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 100−110 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 6 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60 | 55−60 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
This is how PRO W7700 and Radeon 8050S compete in popular games:
- PRO W7700 is 38% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 54.56 | 39.31 |
| Recency | 13 November 2023 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 55 Watt |
PRO W7700 has a 39% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 8050S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 71% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8050S in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 8050S is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
