AMD Instinct MI308X vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI308X and the AMD Radeon 840M. Both products have an empty benchmark score array, an average benchmark score of zero, and zero recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. The data shows both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, a neutral placement that reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than any parity in actual capability.

The absence of comparative scores is significant. The Instinct MI308X is a data center accelerator with 19456 shading units and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor with 256 shading units and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The instruction throughput figures, recorded as FP32 and FP16 compute at 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI308X versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M, show a ratio of roughly 55 to 1 in raw shading throughput. The FP16 figures are identical to the FP32 figures for both products, indicating 1:1 FP16 to FP32 execution rates. The texture rate for the MI308X is recorded at 2,553.6 GTexel/s against 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M, a gap of approximately 55 times. The pixel rate shows a different story: the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s because it has zero ROPs, while the 840M records 23.20 GPixel/s from its 8 ROPs.

The memory subsystems are entirely dissimilar. The MI308X carries 192 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192 bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The 840M uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth figure, meaning its memory performance is tied to the host platform rather than fixed in the database. The MI308X memory clock is recorded as 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective data rate. The 840M lists no dedicated memory clock. These are not competing products in any measurable sense; the database simply lacks a benchmark set that would place them on the same test.

The power envelopes differ by a factor of 50. The MI308X has a TDP of 750 W with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 840M has a TDP of 15 W and carries no suggested PSU because it is an IGP with no external power connectors. The MI308X is an OAM Module with no display outputs, while the 840M is an IGP with portable device dependent display outputs. The MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the AMD Instinct MI308X is an accelerator with no display path, no ROPs, and a 750 W TDP, designed for compute workloads that demand massive memory capacity and bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU with 8 ROPs, display outputs, and a 15 W TDP, designed for mobile graphics rendering. There are no benchmark scores in the database to compare them on a single task. The selection between them is determined by the workload class, not by measured performance.

The MI308X should be chosen for any task that requires the 192 GB HBM3 memory pool, the 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, or the 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 compute. The 840M should be chosen for any task that requires rasterization output, as its 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 8 ROPs provide actual display and rendering capability that the MI308X lacks entirely. The MI308X has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support recorded; the 840M has DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No gaming or graphics API workload can be executed on the MI308X according to the database.

The release dates place the MI308X in December 2023 and the 840M in February 2025. The MI308X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. The MI308X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, the 840M to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The predecessor of the MI308X is Radeon Instinct, the predecessor of the 840M is Navi II IGP. Neither product has a successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X has 19456 shading units. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory. The 840M has System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth figure.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. The MI308X has no API support recorded for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 840M has a 15 W TDP and no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The MI308X has a boost clock of 2100 MHz.

Q: What is the pixel rate for each?

A: The MI308X records 0 MPixel/s because it has 0 ROPs. The 840M records 23.20 GPixel/s from its 8 ROPs.

Specification Differences

The two AMD products differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The MI308X uses a 5 nm process node from TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 840M uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC with unknown transistor count and die size. The MI308X base clock is 1000 MHz, boost clock is 2100 MHz. The 840M base clock is 400 MHz, boost clock is 2900 MHz. Neither product has a game clock recorded.

The MI308X memory clock is 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective. The 840M memory clock is listed as System Shared. The MI308X has 1216 TMUs, the 840M has 16 TMUs. The MI308X has 0 ROPs, the 840M has 8 ROPs. The MI308X has no RT cores recorded, the 840M has 4 RT cores. Neither product has tensor cores recorded. The MI308X texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, the 840M texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s. The MI308X FP32 compute is 81.72 TFLOPS, the 840M FP32 compute is 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The MI308X FP16 compute is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1), the 840M FP16 compute is 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1). The TDP values are 750 W versus 15 W. The slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Both have no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 1150 W for the MI308X, absent for the 840M. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI308X has no display outputs, the 840M has portable device dependent outputs. The production status for the MI308X is not recorded, the 840M is Active. Release dates are December 2023 and February 2025 respectively.

Architecture Differences

The MI308X is built on CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. The 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Krackan Point chip. The MI308X generation is Instinct (MIx), the 840M generation is Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile). The process nodes differ by one nanometer: 5 nm for the MI308X, 4 nm for the 840M, both from TSMC. The transistor count is recorded only for the MI308X at 153,000 million, with the 840M listed as unknown. The die size is 1017 mm² for the MI308X, unknown for the 840M. The transistor density is 150.4M per mm² for the MI308X, not recorded for the 840M.

The memory architecture separates the two completely. The MI308X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192 bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The 840M uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth. The MI308X has no raster output stage, recording 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The 840M has 8 ROPs and 23.20 GPixel/s. The MI308X has no ray tracing cores recorded. The 840M has 4 RT cores. The MI308X has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The 840M has DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X is an OAM Module with no display outputs. The 840M is an IGP with display outputs dependent on the portable device. The MI308X predecessor is Radeon Instinct, the 840M predecessor is Navi II IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins in compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 81.72 TFLOPS exceed the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS by a factor of approximately 55. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s exceeds the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s by the same ratio. The MI308X delivers 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, a capacity and bandwidth profile that the 840M cannot approach with System Shared memory. The MI308X has 19456 shading units and 1216 TMUs. The data indicates the MI308X is built for memory-bound and compute-bound acceleration workloads, such as large model inference or scientific computing, though the database records no specific benchmark results to confirm any particular application.

The 840M wins in graphics output capability. It has 8 ROPs and a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s, while the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s from 0 ROPs. The 840M has 4 RT cores for ray tracing work, a feature not recorded for the MI308X. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, allowing it to run graphics and compute APIs that the MI308X cannot. The 840M has display outputs, though they are portable device dependent, enabling actual visual output. The 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, higher than the MI308X boost of 2100 MHz, and a base clock of 400 MHz versus 1000 MHz. The 840M power draw is 15 W, making it suitable for mobile or low-power platforms, while the MI308X requires 750 W and a 1150 W PSU. The 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The 840M is an IGP with no external power connectors, the MI308X is an OAM Module also with no external power connectors. Neither product has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.