AMD Instinct MI300 vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300 and the AMD Radeon 840M occupy entirely separate corners of the GPU landscape, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that divergence clearly. The Instinct MI300 is a data center accelerator built for compute density, while the Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices. Their performance profiles do not overlap in any meaningful way, so the "winner" depends entirely on the workload category being examined.

For raw compute throughput, the Instinct MI300 dominates. The database shows it producing 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is over 32 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.48 TFLOPS) delivered by the Radeon 840M. This gap is not incremental; it is a chasm. The Instinct MI300 also posts a texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s compared to 46.40 GTexel/s for the Radeon 840M, a ratio of roughly 32 to 1 as well. In shading units, the Instinct MI300 carries 14,080 versus 256 for the Radeon 840M, and in texture mapping units, 880 versus 16. These are not close contests; they are different product classes.

However, the Radeon 840M wins in every category related to graphics output and consumer-facing features. The Instinct MI300 has no display outputs at all, and its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. The Radeon 840M, by contrast, produces 23.20 GPixel/s and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any workload that requires rendering to a screen, gaming, or graphics API compatibility, the Radeon 840M is the only functional option between the two.

The power envelope further separates them. The Instinct MI300 draws 600 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors plus a 1000 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 840M operates at 15 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP with PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Instinct MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. For mobile or low-power environments, the Radeon 840M is the sole viable choice; the Instinct MI300 cannot function without substantial infrastructure.

The wins are therefore categorical: the Instinct MI300 wins every raw compute and memory bandwidth metric, while the Radeon 840M wins every graphics, API, and power efficiency metric. The database records zero head-to-head wins for either side in the benchmark array, which is consistent with the fact that no shared benchmark workload exists between a server accelerator with no display outputs and an integrated mobile GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural families within AMD. The Instinct MI300 uses CDNA 3.0, the compute-optimized data center architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5, the graphics-optimized architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The process nodes are close, but the design philosophies are not.

The Instinct MI300 has a die size of 1017 mm² and contains 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible from the recorded data. What is clear is that the Instinct MI300 is a massive monolithic chip, while the Radeon 840M is a small integrated processor intended to share a package with a CPU.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. Memory clocks run at 1300 MHz, which translates to 5.2 Gbps effective. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM. Its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent. This means the Radeon 840M's memory performance varies with the host platform, while the Instinct MI300 has fixed, enormous bandwidth.

The core configurations reflect their roles. The Instinct MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and zero ROPs. The zero ROP count is notable: this is a compute accelerator with no rasterization pipeline, which explains the 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, plus 4 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI300 lists no ray tracing cores at all. The Radeon 840M supports ray tracing; the Instinct MI300 does not.

Clock behavior also differs sharply. The Instinct MI300 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Despite the much lower base clock, the Radeon 840M boosts nearly 71% higher than the Instinct MI300's boost. This reflects the different thermal and power budgets: the 15 W integrated GPU can spike its clocks aggressively, while the 600 W accelerator runs at more conservative frequencies to manage its enormous power draw.

FP16 and FP32 performance are identical within each chip. The Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS for both FP16 and FP32, and the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS for both. This 1:1 ratio means neither chip uses a dedicated FP16 fast path, which is a notable architectural choice for the data center part, but it is what the recorded data shows.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The Instinct MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The release dates also separate them: the Instinct MI300 launched on January 3, 2023, while the Radeon 840M arrived on February 28, 2025. The Radeon 840M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the Instinct MI300's predecessor is Radeon Instinct. The Radeon 840M is marked as active production, while the Instinct MI300 has no production status recorded.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: these products are not competitors, and any choice between them is dictated entirely by the target environment and workload.

The AMD Instinct MI300 is for server racks, high-performance computing, and workloads that need massive FP32 throughput, huge memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth. Its 128 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, and 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance place it firmly in the data center category. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no rasterization capability. It requires a 600 W power budget, two 8-pin connectors, and a 1000 W PSU. Anyone deploying this chip is running compute jobs, not rendering frames.

The AMD Radeon 840M is for thin-and-light laptops, portable devices, and systems where power draw must stay minimal. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and system shared memory make it an integrated solution. It supports modern graphics APIs, includes ray tracing cores, and can render pixels at 23.20 GPixel/s. Its 256 shading units and 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 are modest by discrete GPU standards but appropriate for an IGP.

The recorded benchmark scores tell the same story: both chips sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. This is not a sign of equivalence; it is a sign that neither has any benchmark entries in the database. The percentile ranking is a placeholder, not a measurement of comparative performance.

For a user building a compute server, the Instinct MI300 is the only option of the two. For a user buying a laptop, the Radeon 840M is the only option of the two. There is no scenario where these chips compete for the same socket, the same power supply, or the same workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is over 32 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.48 TFLOPS) of the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300 output video to a display?

A: No. The Instinct MI300 has no display outputs and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. It also lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 840M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Radeon 840M includes 4 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The Instinct MI300 has 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with size, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system.

Q: What are the power requirements for each chip?

A: The Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W and uses no power connectors.

Q: When did each product launch?

A: The Instinct MI300 was released on January 3, 2023. The Radeon 840M was released on February 28, 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products, which is expected given their entirely different target markets. However, the recorded specifications allow for direct numerical comparisons that illustrate the scale of the differences.

The largest win for the Instinct MI300 is in texture rate. The accelerator produces 1,496.0 GTexel/s compared to 46.40 GTexel/s for the Radeon 840M, a 32.2x advantage. The shading unit count tells the same story: 14,080 versus 256, a 55x difference. The TMU count is 880 versus 16, a 55x difference as well. These three metrics all point to the Instinct MI300 being a compute monster with massive parallel processing capability.

Memory bandwidth is the second major win for the Instinct MI300. The 5.32 TB/s of HBM3 bandwidth versus the system dependent bandwidth of the Radeon 840M is not numerically comparable because the Radeon 840M's bandwidth varies with the host platform. But the Instinct MI300's fixed 5.32 TB/s on an 8192-bit bus is a clear statement of intent: this chip is built to feed its compute units with enormous data throughput. The Radeon 840M's system shared memory has no fixed bandwidth figure in the database.

The Instinct MI300 also wins on transistor count, with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The Radeon 840M's transistor count is unknown, so no ratio can be stated. The die size difference is implied but not numerically comparable.

The Radeon 840M's biggest win is in pixel rate. It produces 23.20 GPixel/s, while the Instinct MI300 produces 0 MPixel/s. This is an absolute win because the Instinct MI300 has no rasterization hardware at all, as evidenced by its zero ROP count. The Radeon 840M has 8 ROPs and can render pixels; the Instinct MI300 cannot.

Clock speed is another area where the Radeon 840M shows an advantage. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz is 70.6% higher than the Instinct MI300's boost clock of 1700 MHz. Its base clock of 400 MHz is much lower than the Instinct MI300's 1000 MHz, but the boost behavior demonstrates that the Radeon 840M can ramp up aggressively when power and thermal headroom allow.

Power efficiency, measured in performance per watt, is not directly recorded in the database, but the raw numbers can be examined. The Instinct MI300 produces 47.87 TFLOPS at 600 W, which equates to roughly 0.08 TFLOPS per watt. The Radeon 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 15 W, which equates to roughly 0.099 TFLOPS per watt. The Radeon 840M is approximately 24% more efficient in FP32 per watt based on these figures. This is a rough calculation from the recorded TDP and FP32 numbers, but it indicates that the integrated GPU is not entirely without merit in efficiency terms.

The memory clocks differ as well. The Instinct MI300 runs its memory at 1300 MHz, which is 5.2 Gbps effective. The Radeon 840M has no dedicated memory clock because its memory is system shared. This is another categorical difference: the Instinct MI300 has fixed, high-speed HBM3, while the Radeon 840M depends entirely on the host system's memory subsystem.

The bus interfaces also show a generational split. The Instinct MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which provides the bandwidth needed for a data center accelerator. The Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for an integrated GPU sharing memory with the CPU. The process nodes are close, 5 nm versus 4 nm, but the architectural goals could not be more different.

The API support is a clean sweep for the Radeon 840M. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI300 lists N/A for all three. This means the Radeon 840M can run modern games and graphics applications, while the Instinct MI300 cannot run any standard graphics API workload. For any consumer-facing graphics task, the Radeon 840M is the only functional choice.

The physical dimensions also differ, though the Radeon 840M has no recorded dimensions because it is an IGP. The Instinct MI300 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. This is a full-size accelerator card, while the Radeon 840M is soldered onto a motherboard or integrated into a mobile processor package.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a complete separation of capabilities. The Instinct MI300 wins every compute, memory, and bandwidth metric by enormous margins, often exceeding 30x. The Radeon 840M wins every graphics, API, and power efficiency metric, with the pixel rate being an absolute win because the Instinct MI300 has zero pixel output capability. No benchmark score bridges this gap, and none is needed to understand that these products serve different purposes entirely.