Radeon 8040S vs R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Radeon 8040S, including specs and performance data.
8040S outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 729% 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 | 828 | 265 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 32.45 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (less than a 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 | 512 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2800 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 179.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.734 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | 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 | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 18
−678%
| 140−150
+678%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1400%
|
130−140
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−767%
|
50−55
+767%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1400%
|
130−140
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−767%
|
50−55
+767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−863%
|
75−80
+863%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−615%
|
90−95
+615%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−259%
|
160−170
+259%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1400%
|
130−140
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−374%
|
250−260
+374%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−767%
|
50−55
+767%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
−728%
|
240−250
+728%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−863%
|
75−80
+863%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−856%
|
85−90
+856%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−940%
|
50−55
+940%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−615%
|
90−95
+615%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−610%
|
70−75
+610%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−259%
|
160−170
+259%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−767%
|
50−55
+767%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
−708%
|
210−220
+708%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−863%
|
75−80
+863%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−571%
|
90−95
+571%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−615%
|
90−95
+615%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−1083%
|
70−75
+1083%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−687%
|
110−120
+687%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−705%
|
160−170
+705%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3100%
|
30−35
+3100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−708%
|
210−220
+708%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−648%
|
200−210
+648%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−980%
|
50−55
+980%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−893%
|
130−140
+893%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−713%
|
65−70
+713%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Radeon 8040S compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8040S is 678% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8040S is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8040S performs better in 51 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.78 | 23.05 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
Radeon 8040S has a 729.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 8040S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.
