Radeon 8040S vs RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 and Radeon 8040S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8040S outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 447% 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 | 702 | 257 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.62 | 32.28 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 320 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 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_1 | 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 | 19
−426%
| 100−110
+426%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
−214%
|
130−140
+214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 11
−336%
|
45−50
+336%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−327%
|
90−95
+327%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−366%
|
130−140
+366%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−413%
|
75−80
+413%
|
| Fortnite | 52
−127%
|
110−120
+127%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−370%
|
90−95
+370%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−341%
|
75−80
+341%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−447%
|
90−95
+447%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−189%
|
160−170
+189%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−422%
|
90−95
+422%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
−1829%
|
130−140
+1829%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
−412%
|
250−260
+412%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
−438%
|
210−220
+438%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−542%
|
75−80
+542%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−462%
|
110−120
+462%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−370%
|
90−95
+370%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−562%
|
85−90
+562%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−380%
|
45−50
+380%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−1200%
|
50−55
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−447%
|
90−95
+447%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−400%
|
70−75
+400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−189%
|
160−170
+189%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−488%
|
90−95
+488%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−478%
|
50−55
+478%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
−441%
|
200−210
+441%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−492%
|
75−80
+492%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−370%
|
90−95
+370%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−380%
|
45−50
+380%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−447%
|
90−95
+447%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−426%
|
300−310
+426%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12
−883%
|
110−120
+883%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−412%
|
160−170
+412%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−975%
|
40−45
+975%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−445%
|
180−190
+445%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−339%
|
200−210
+339%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3200%
|
65−70
+3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−575%
|
50−55
+575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−510%
|
60−65
+510%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−550%
|
24−27
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−550%
|
35−40
+550%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−613%
|
55−60
+613%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−562%
|
130−140
+562%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−436%
|
75−80
+436%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−833%
|
27−30
+833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−420%
|
24−27
+420%
|
4K
High Preset
| 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 Preset
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and Radeon 8040S compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8040S is 426% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 8040S is 3600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8040S performs better in 55 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.03 | 22.06 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has 266.7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 8040S, on the other hand, has a 447.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 8040S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 5 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.
