AMD Instinct MI300A vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300A and AMD Radeon 840M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet both carry the AMD name and target entirely different workloads. The MI300A is a 750 W OAM module built for compute density, while the Radeon 840M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmarks between these two, as they never compete in the same system class, but the specification differences reveal the scale of separation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark scores for the AMD Instinct MI300A and the AMD Radeon 840M. Neither device has recorded benchmark entries, and the wins counter for both stands at zero. This absence of comparative data reflects their disjointed market placement: the MI300A is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, while the 840M is an IGP designed for portable devices.

Without direct measurements, the closest available comparison comes from the raw throughput figures recorded in the database. The MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is 1.4848 TFLOPS. The ratio between these two is approximately 41.3 times in favor of the MI300A, though this is a derived value from the listed numbers. The texture rate shows a similar gap: 1,915.2 GTexel/s for the MI300A versus 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M, a difference of roughly 41.3 times as well. The pixel rate inverts, with the MI300A reporting 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while the 840M achieves 23.20 GPixel/s thanks to its 8 ROPs.

The memory subsystem further separates the two. The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 across a 8192 bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The 840M relies on System Shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as System Dependent. The MI300A's memory clock runs at 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the 840M has no dedicated memory clock.

Architecture Differences

The MI300A is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Aqua Vanjaram chip fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Krackan Point chip on a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. The process nodes differ by one nanometer, but the architectural goals diverge completely: CDNA 3.0 prioritizes compute throughput for scientific workloads, while RDNA 3.5 focuses on graphics and mobile efficiency.

Transistor counts show the magnitude of difference. The MI300A packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 840M lists its transistor count and die size as unknown, leaving no direct comparison possible. Shading units number 14,592 on the MI300A versus 256 on the 840M. Texture mapping units follow at 912 versus 16. The MI300A has 0 ROPs, while the 840M has 8. Ray tracing cores appear only on the 840M with 4 units; the MI300A shows none.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The 840M starts at 400 MHz base and reaches 2900 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on the 840M reflects its smaller, more power-efficient design, though the massive core count of the MI300A overwhelms this advantage in raw compute. The FP16 throughput on the 840M matches its FP32 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the MI300A lists no FP16 figure in the database.

API support separates them entirely. The MI300A has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, all listed as N/A. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This makes the 840M a functional graphics device, while the MI300A is purely a compute accelerator. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300A against PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 840M.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300A wins decisively in compute-bound workloads. Its 61.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 5.32 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 GB HBM3 capacity make it suited for large-scale data processing, AI training, and scientific simulation. The 1,915.2 GTexel/s texture rate indicates substantial throughput for texture-heavy operations, though the lack of ROPs and pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s means it cannot render frames in the traditional sense. Its 750 W TDP and 1150 W suggested PSU demand dedicated server infrastructure.

The 840M wins in graphics rendering and mobile integration. Its 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 8 ROPs allow actual display output, and the 4 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, something the MI300A cannot do. The 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate, while modest, supports real-time rendering on portable devices. The 15 W TDP fits into laptops and mini PCs, and the System Shared memory eliminates the need for separate VRAM. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz exceeds the MI300A's 2100 MHz, showing higher per-core frequency potential in short bursts.

The production status confirms the split: the 840M is Active, while the MI300A has no production status recorded. Release dates place the MI300A on 2023-12-05 and the 840M on 2025-02-28, roughly 15 months apart. The predecessors differ as well: the MI300A follows Radeon Instinct, and the 840M follows Navi II IGP.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 41.3 times the FP32 compute of the Radeon 840M, 41.3 times the texture rate, and 128 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory versus System Shared memory. It targets server racks, requiring an OAM Module slot, no display outputs, and a 1150 W power supply. The Radeon 840M targets portable devices, drawing 15 W, using PCIe 4.0 x8, and supporting the full modern graphics API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI300A is the choice for compute acceleration where raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth dominate. The 840M is the choice for graphics rendering and mobile efficiency where power constraints and display connectivity matter. Neither device can substitute for the other. The MI300A cannot output video, and the 840M cannot approach the MI300A's compute density or bandwidth. The absence of benchmarks between them is not a data gap; it reflects that no test scenario would ever place them in competition.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.4848 TFLOPS). The MI300A is approximately 41.3 times faster in FP32.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI300A render graphics?

A: No. The MI300A has 0 ROPs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, no display outputs, and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. It is a compute-only accelerator.

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

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

Q: What memory types do these GPUs use?

A: The MI300A uses 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192 bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 840M uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300A has a 750 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 840M has a 15 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which device has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Instinct MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The 840M runs at a 400 MHz base clock and the MI300A at 1000 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI300A | AMD Radeon 840M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Krackan Point |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 14592 | 256 |

| TMUs | 912 | 16 |

| ROPs | 0 | 8 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | null | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,915.2 GTexel/s | 46.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.29 TFLOPS | 1,484.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | null | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Production Status | null | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05T17:00:00.000Z | 2025-02-28T17:00:00.000Z |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Navi II IGP |