AMD Instinct MI300X vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI300X and AMD Radeon 840M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, one a data center accelerator with a 750 W TDP and the other a 15 W integrated graphics solution for mobile processors. The recorded data shows a single benchmark entry for the MI300X, while the 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making a direct numerical comparison impossible. However, the available specifications and the MI300X’s percentile ranking provide enough material for a practical analysis.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one benchmark result for the AMD Instinct MI300X: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994. This score places the MI300X in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms every other recorded graphics processor. The AMD Radeon 840M has no benchmark entries, so its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it sits in the 50th percentile by default. This absence of data prevents a direct head-to-head comparison, but it also highlights the fundamental difference in purpose between the two products.

The MI300X’s nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA data center parts. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, which is 5% higher than the MI300X. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, putting it 8% ahead. On the other side, the NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763, which is 7.5% lower than the MI300X, and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 287,237, which is 10.7% lower. These deltas show the MI300X competing directly with the top tier of NVIDIA’s accelerator lineup, trading blows with the H200 and B200 while clearly outpacing the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada.

The Radeon 840M, with no recorded scores, cannot be placed against these rivals. Its 50th percentile ranking is a placeholder rather than a measured result, as the absence of a benchmark score leaves its performance position undefined. In practical terms, the 840M is an integrated GPU designed for lightweight tasks, while the MI300X is a dedicated accelerator for compute-heavy workloads. The gap in raw performance is enormous, but the products are not competitors in any meaningful sense.

Where Each One Wins

The MI300X wins in every scenario involving heavy parallel computation. Its 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput indicate a device built for massive workloads such as AI inference, scientific simulation, and large-scale data processing. The 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth further supports this role, as it can hold and feed enormous datasets without bottlenecking. The 100th percentile ranking confirms that, in the database’s recorded measurements, no GPU surpasses it.

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios where power efficiency and portability are the priorities. Its 15 W TDP allows it to operate inside a laptop or compact mobile device without a dedicated power supply or cooling solution. The 4 nm process node and RDNA 3.5 architecture provide modern features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate support and four ray tracing cores, which enable basic gaming and media acceleration on the go. Its 256 shading units and 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput are modest but sufficient for integrated graphics duties. The 840M also has a production status of Active, while the MI300X’s production status is not recorded, suggesting the 840M is currently available for mobile designs.

The MI300X has no display outputs, meaning it requires a separate graphics solution for any visual output. The 840M, by contrast, is designed to drive displays, with its output configuration described as portable device dependent. This makes the 840M the clear choice for everyday computing, while the MI300X is strictly a compute accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300X has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994, placing it in the 100th percentile. The AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average score is listed as 0.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MI300X is 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200. It is 7.5% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S and 10.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 memory with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Can the MI300X output video to a display?

A: No, the MI300X has no display outputs. The Radeon 840M’s display outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive a laptop or mobile screen.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU, as it draws power from the host system.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, as it is not designed for traditional graphics rendering.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC, while the Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm node from the same foundry. The MI300X contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The 840M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Clock speeds vary significantly. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory running at 1300 MHz or 5.2 Gbps effective. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with system shared memory. The MI300X’s FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS, while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 55 times. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X versus 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M. The MI300X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s due to its lack of ROPs, while the 840M has 8 ROPs and a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the 840M is an IGP with no power connectors. Their release dates are also distinct, with the MI300X launching on December 5, 2023, and the 840M on February 28, 2025.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. It belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and has a predecessor of Radeon Instinct. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Krackan Point chip, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation and succeeding the Navi II IGP.

The MI300X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs but zero ROPs, which is consistent with its compute-focused design. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, along with 4 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU lists tensor cores, though the MI300X’s massive shading unit count serves a similar purpose for compute workloads.

The MI300X uses dedicated HBM3 memory, while the 840M relies on system shared memory. This architectural difference reflects their intended use cases: the MI300X needs high-bandwidth, high-capacity memory for data center tasks, while the 840M shares system memory to save cost and power in mobile designs. The MI300X has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support, whereas the 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, confirming its role as a graphics solution.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no overlap in purpose. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a 750 W accelerator with a 100th percentile benchmark score, designed for compute-intensive environments where power and cooling are available. Its 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large models and datasets, and its performance relative to NVIDIA rivals, within 8% of the B200 and 5% of the H200 NVL, places it firmly in the top tier of accelerators. Anyone with a workload that fits the MI300X’s capabilities should select it based on its recorded performance and memory capacity alone.

The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, active production status, and no recorded benchmark scores. It delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, supports modern graphics APIs, and includes ray tracing cores. Its role is to provide basic graphics and compute for mobile devices, where the MI300X cannot function due to its lack of display outputs and massive power requirements. For portable systems, the 840M is the only viable choice between the two.

The decision, therefore, is not about which GPU is better but which fits the intended system. The MI300X is for servers and workstations with dedicated compute needs, while the 840M is for laptops and compact devices requiring integrated graphics. The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between them, and none are needed, as their specifications dictate entirely separate markets.