Radeon 8040S vs Arc A770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A770 with Radeon 8040S, including specs and performance data.
A770 outperforms 8040S by a significant 28% 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 | 193 | 255 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 50.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.89 | 34.86 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | DG2-512 | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2022 (3 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 2100 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2400 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 614.4 | 179.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 19.66 TFLOPS | 5.734 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | 512 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 16 |
| L2 Cache | 16 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 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 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 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 | 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 107
+33.8%
| 80−85
−33.8%
|
| 1440p | 63
+40%
| 45−50
−40%
|
| 4K | 39
+30%
| 30−35
−30%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.07 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.22 | no data |
| 4K | 8.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 317
+120%
|
140−150
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+39.3%
|
55−60
−39.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 125
+136%
|
50−55
−136%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19.2%
|
95−100
−19.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+87.5%
|
140−150
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70
+25%
|
55−60
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+41%
|
80−85
−41%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+18.7%
|
120−130
−18.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 33
−203%
|
100−105
+203%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 139
+73.8%
|
80−85
−73.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 92
+73.6%
|
50−55
−73.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+30%
|
100−105
−30%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+16.3%
|
170−180
−16.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19.2%
|
95−100
−19.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 143
−0.7%
|
140−150
+0.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+5.3%
|
260−270
−5.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+8.9%
|
55−60
−8.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+31.3%
|
80−85
−31.3%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+18.7%
|
120−130
−18.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 127
+58.8%
|
80−85
−58.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+14.1%
|
90−95
−14.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 74
+39.6%
|
50−55
−39.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 113
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+30%
|
100−105
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 196
+155%
|
75−80
−155%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+16.3%
|
170−180
−16.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+19.2%
|
95−100
−19.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+25.3%
|
80−85
−25.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 62
+17%
|
50−55
−17%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+30%
|
100−105
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
−6.9%
|
75−80
+6.9%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+33.3%
|
150−160
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+18.7%
|
120−130
−18.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+26.1%
|
180−190
−26.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
−6.7%
|
45−50
+6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 71
+109%
|
30−35
−109%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+11.9%
|
210−220
−11.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+41.4%
|
55−60
−41.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
−340%
|
65−70
+340%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 47
+67.9%
|
27−30
−67.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+46.3%
|
40−45
−46.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+32.3%
|
60−65
−32.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+12%
|
24−27
−12%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 73
+92.1%
|
35−40
−92.1%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.7%
|
150−160
−30.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+30.8%
|
35−40
−30.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+39.3%
|
27−30
−39.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+39.3%
|
27−30
−39.3%
|
This is how Arc A770 and Radeon 8040S compete in popular games:
- Arc A770 is 34% faster in 1080p
- Arc A770 is 40% faster in 1440p
- Arc A770 is 30% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A770 is 155% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 8040S is 463% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A770 performs better in 50 tests (85%)
- Radeon 8040S performs better in 9 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.86 | 24.94 |
| Recency | 12 October 2022 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 55 Watt |
Arc A770 has a 27.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 8040S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 309.1% lower power consumption.
The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8040S in performance tests.
Be aware that Arc A770 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 8040S 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.
