AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI350X or the AMD Radeon 840M. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals are listed. This means a conventional frame-by-frame or compute-task comparison cannot be constructed from the database. Instead, the comparison must be drawn from the architectural and specification fields, which reveal two entirely different design targets.

The Instinct MI350X is a data center accelerator built for massive parallel workloads. Its shading unit count of 16,384 dwarfs the Radeon 840M's 256 shading units. That is a 64x difference in raw shader count. The texture mapping units follow the same pattern: 1,024 on the MI350X versus 16 on the 840M. The pixel rate tells a different story, however. The MI350X lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s and 0 ROPs, meaning it does not rasterize at all. The Radeon 840M, by contrast, delivers 23.20 GPixel/s through its 8 ROPs. In any traditional graphics rendering workload, the 840M can output pixels while the MI350X cannot.

Compute throughput is where the MI350X establishes its dominance. The FP32 figure of 72.09 TFLOPS is substantially higher than the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Converting the 840M's figure to TFLOPS gives approximately 1.48 TFLOPS, which places the MI350X roughly 48.5x ahead in single-precision floating-point work. Both parts list FP16 at the same rate as FP32, a 1:1 ratio, so the FP16 comparison mirrors the FP32 gap exactly. Texture rate also favors the MI350X heavily: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a difference of roughly 48.5x again. The consistency of these ratios suggests the MI350X's advantage comes from sheer scale rather than architectural efficiency.

Memory capacity and bandwidth reinforce the divide. The MI350X carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192 bit bus and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. No fixed number exists for the 840M's memory performance, so the comparison is qualitative: the MI350X has a dedicated, massive memory subsystem, while the 840M relies on whatever system RAM the host laptop provides. The MI350X also runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, a detail absent for the 840M.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The 840M has a lower base of 400 MHz but a higher boost of 2900 MHz. The 840M's boost clock exceeds the MI350X's boost by 700 MHz, yet the MI350X still achieves far higher throughput because of its 64x shader advantage. This indicates that the 840M relies on frequency to compensate for a small execution footprint, while the MI350X relies on width and memory bandwidth.

Neither part has a benchmark percentile above the median. Both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. That shared percentile is misleading given the absence of benchmark scores. It likely reflects the default placeholder value rather than measured performance. The wins counters are also zero for both sides, which is consistent with the empty head-to-head benchmark array.

The Verdict

The data defines two separate products with almost no overlap. The AMD Instinct MI350X is an OAM module with no display outputs, no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and a 1000 W TDP. It is not a graphics card in the consumer sense. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor inside a mobile chip, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with portable-device-dependent display outputs and a 15 W TDP.

From the recorded data, the MI350X is the choice for compute-heavy data center workloads that need 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, 288 GB of HBM3e, and 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth. It has no rasterization capability, so it cannot render frames. The 840M is the choice for mobile systems that need display output, rasterization, and API compatibility. Its 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and API support make it functional for graphics, but its compute capacity is a fraction of the MI350X's.

There is no single winner across all categories because the two devices do not compete. The MI350X wins every compute and memory metric. The 840M wins every graphics-specific metric, specifically pixel rate and API support. A user needing a display output has only one option, the 840M. A user needing maximum FP32 throughput has only one option, the MI350X.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. It is built from a chip labeled MI350 256CU, which suggests 256 compute units. The 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a chip labeled Krackan Point. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 840M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile family.

The MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The 840M lists its transistor count and die size as unknown, so no density figure exists for it. The MI350X is manufactured by TSMC at 3 nm, one step ahead of the 840M's 4 nm process. The smaller node likely contributes to the MI350X's ability to pack 16,384 shading units onto a single die.

The MI350X has no ROPs and no pixel rate. This is a fundamental architectural choice: CDNA 4.0 is optimized for compute and AI workloads, not for rendering. The 840M has 8 ROPs, 16 TMUs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The MI350X lists no ray tracing cores at all. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X lists N/A for all three. The MI350X also has no display outputs, whereas the 840M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Both parts use TSMC as the foundry, but the process nodes differ. Both list FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning neither has a dedicated half-precision path that doubles throughput. The MI350X's FP32 and FP16 both sit at 72.09 TFLOPS. The 840M's FP32 and FP16 both sit at 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ across nearly every field in the database. Process node: 3 nm for the MI350X versus 4 nm for the 840M. Transistors: 185,000 million for the MI350X versus unknown for the 840M. Die size: 2380 mm² for the MI350X versus unknown. Transistor density: 77.7M per mm² for the MI350X versus null.

Base clock: 1000 MHz on the MI350X versus 400 MHz on the 840M. Boost clock: 2200 MHz on the MI350X versus 2900 MHz on the 840M. Memory clock: 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective on the MI350X versus system shared on the 840M. Memory size: 288 GB of HBM3e versus system shared. Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus system shared. Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units: 16,384 versus 256. TMUs: 1,024 versus 16. ROPs: 0 versus 8. Ray tracing cores: null versus 4. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS. FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

TDP: 1000 W versus 15 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors: none for both. Suggested PSU: 1400 W for the MI350X versus null for the 840M. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent. DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate. OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6. Vulkan: N/A versus 1.4.

Dimensions: the MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, with no height listed. The 840M has no dimensions listed at all. Release dates: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, the 840M on 2025-02-28. Predecessors: Radeon Instinct for the MI350X, Navi II IGP for the 840M. Production status: null for the MI350X, active for the 840M. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The MI350X is roughly 48.5x ahead in single-precision compute.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI350X output video to a display?

A: No. The database lists the MI350X as having no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs. The Radeon 840M, by contrast, has 8 ROPs and a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s, with display outputs described as portable device dependent.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192 bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: The Radeon 840M lists 4 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI350X lists null for ray tracing cores, indicating no dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has API support for modern graphics?

A: The Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins in every compute-oriented category. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput is the dominant metric. Its texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s indicates extreme texture fetch capability, relevant for certain compute and AI operations even though it has no ROPs. The 288 GB HBM3e pool with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth allows it to hold and stream massive datasets far beyond what an integrated GPU can access. The 1,024 TMUs and 16,384 shading units provide parallel execution width that the 840M cannot approach. The 1000 W TDP and OAM form factor confirm this is a rack-mounted accelerator, not a client part. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high host bandwidth, and its 3 nm process with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die indicates a flagship-class compute die.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in every graphics-and-client category. It has 8 ROPs and a 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, giving it actual rasterization output. Its 4 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the MI350X. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable in standard graphics applications and games. Its display outputs, while portable device dependent, exist at all. Its 2900 MHz boost clock is higher than the MI350X's 2200 MHz boost, which helps in latency-sensitive tasks. Its 15 W TDP allows integration into thin-and-light laptops, whereas the MI350X requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. The 840M also uses the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is sufficient for an integrated GPU sharing system memory.

The production status field also splits the pair: the 840M is listed as active, while the MI350X has no production status recorded. The 840M's release date of 2025-02-28 precedes the MI350X's release date of 2025-06-11. Both parts have no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database, so their percentile rankings are placeholders at the 50th percentile. The wins counters remain at zero for both. The data therefore describes two devices that never directly compete, with the MI350X owning the compute domain and the 840M owning the mobile graphics domain.