Radeon 8040S vs HD 6310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6310 and Radeon 8040S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8040S outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 8500% 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 | 1398 | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.24 | 34.92 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | Loveland | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (15 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 80 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 276 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.208 | 179.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04416 TFLOPS | 5.734 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | + |
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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−562%
|
170−180
+562%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1923%
|
260−270
+1923%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−8233%
|
750−800
+8233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1440%
|
75−80
+1440%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−562%
|
170−180
+562%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−8233%
|
750−800
+8233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1440%
|
75−80
+1440%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8362%
|
2200−2250
+8362%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−8233%
|
250−260
+8233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6500%
|
65−70
+6500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−250%
|
45−50
+250%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8040S is 14900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8040S performs better in 22 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 31 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 24.94 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 55 Watt |
HD 6310 has 206% lower power consumption.
Radeon 8040S, on the other hand, has a 8500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 8040S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
