Radeon 8050S vs RX 6650M XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6650M XT and Radeon 8050S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8050S outperforms 6650M XT by a minimal 2% 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 | 136 | 129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.95 | 55.66 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 January 2022 (4 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
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 | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2416 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 34,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 309.2 | 358.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.896 TFLOPS | 11.47 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 32 |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | 32 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 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 | No outputs | 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 | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 90−95 | 94
+4.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+2.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220
+1.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95
+2.2%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 100−110 | 100−110
+2.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+2.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140
+1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220
+1.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95
+2.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+25%
|
100 |
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 170−180
+1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240
+1.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+2.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140
+1.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220
+1.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95
+2.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+2.9%
|
140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+30.2%
|
96 |
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 170−180
+1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+9.3%
|
118 |
| Metro Exodus | 90−95 | 95−100
+2.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150 | 156
+11.4%
|
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240
+1.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140
+1.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95
+2.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+2.9%
|
140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+47.1%
|
85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160
+2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+52.2%
|
92 |
| Valorant | 230−240
+0.9%
|
230−240 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 160−170 | 170−180
+1.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100 | 100−110
+3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 280−290
+2.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85 | 80−85
+2.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60 | 55−60
+3.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.9%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 260−270 | 270−280
+1.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105 | 100−110
+1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50
+4.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 95−100
+2.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 75−80
+2.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 100−110
+2.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90 | 85−90
+2.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65 | 60−65
+3.2%
|
| Valorant | 230−240 | 240−250
+2.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 60−65
+3.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+0.9%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 50−55
+1.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75 | 75−80
+2.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55 | 55−60
+3.8%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55
+3.9%
|
This is how RX 6650M XT and Radeon 8050S compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8050S is 4% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6650M XT is 52% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8050S is 11% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6650M XT performs better in 5 tests (9%)
- Radeon 8050S performs better in 48 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.44 | 39.31 |
| Recency | 4 January 2022 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 55 Watt |
Radeon 8050S has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 54% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 6650M XT and Radeon 8050S.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
