Radeon 8040S vs RX Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 with Radeon 8040S, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 64 outperforms 8040S by a substantial 33% 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 | 174 | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.62 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.68 | 34.92 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Strix Halo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | 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 | 1247 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1546 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 395.8 | 179.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.66 TFLOPS | 5.734 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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 | 116
+36.5%
| 85−90
−36.5%
|
| 1440p | 77
+40%
| 55−60
−40%
|
| 4K | 51
+45.7%
| 35−40
−45.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.30 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.48 | no data |
| 4K | 9.78 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+31.3%
|
140−150
−31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+37.5%
|
55−60
−37.5%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 85−90
+42.6%
|
60−65
−42.6%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+62.6%
|
95−100
−62.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+31.3%
|
140−150
−31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+37.5%
|
55−60
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+32.5%
|
80−85
−32.5%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+22%
|
120−130
−22%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 167
+67%
|
100−105
−67%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+33.8%
|
80−85
−33.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| Valorant | 315
+83.1%
|
170−180
−83.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 146
+47.5%
|
95−100
−47.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+31.3%
|
140−150
−31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+5.7%
|
260−270
−5.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+37.5%
|
55−60
−37.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 150
+36.4%
|
110−120
−36.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+25.3%
|
80−85
−25.3%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+22%
|
120−130
−22%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+58%
|
100−105
−58%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+33.8%
|
80−85
−33.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+26.1%
|
90−95
−26.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+28.1%
|
55−60
−28.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+71.4%
|
75−80
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 293
+70.3%
|
170−180
−70.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 139
+40.4%
|
95−100
−40.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+37.5%
|
55−60
−37.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+38%
|
100−105
−38%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+18.1%
|
80−85
−18.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 128
+28%
|
100−105
−28%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140
+40%
|
100−105
−40%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+22%
|
120−130
−22%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+47.3%
|
55−60
−47.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+31.1%
|
180−190
−31.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+41.7%
|
45−50
−41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+35.3%
|
30−35
−35.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Valorant | 263
+25.2%
|
210−220
−25.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+27.1%
|
70−75
−27.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+42.3%
|
24−27
−42.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+39.7%
|
55−60
−39.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+48.5%
|
65−70
−48.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+46.3%
|
40−45
−46.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+40.3%
|
60−65
−40.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+48%
|
24−27
−48%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+42.9%
|
45−50
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+26.3%
|
35−40
−26.3%
|
| Valorant | 205
+36.7%
|
150−160
−36.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+51.3%
|
35−40
−51.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+37.1%
|
70−75
−37.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+46.7%
|
45−50
−46.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+50%
|
27−30
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+50%
|
27−30
−50%
|
This is how RX Vega 64 and Radeon 8040S compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is 36% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 is 40% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 is 46% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 109% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 performs better in 53 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.26 | 24.94 |
| Recency | 7 August 2017 | 6 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 55 Watt |
RX Vega 64 has a 33.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 8040S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 436.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8040S in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 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.
