AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

The AMD Radeon 610M and NVIDIA GeForce 840M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, and the benchmark data reveals a fascinating split. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M delivers a score of 5764, decisively beating the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535 by 21.3%. However, the story flips completely in the Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353, outperforming the 840M's 4880 by a significant 30.2%. This results in a 1-1 split in benchmark wins, with each GPU claiming victory in a different API environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking finding is the complete role reversal between the two benchmark suites. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's advantage is substantial, posting a 5764 score that is 1229 points higher than the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535. This 21.3% margin indicates that the 840M holds a clear edge in compute workloads that favor its architecture. The AMD Radeon 610M's OpenCL score places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M sits at the 31st percentile, showing they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite the large delta in this specific test.

The Vulkan results are where the AMD Radeon 610M demonstrates its modern architecture's strengths. Its 6353 Vulkan score crushes the 840M's 4880, representing a 30.2% improvement. This is a massive swing from the OpenCL results, suggesting that the 610M's RDNA 2.0 design with hardware ray tracing cores is far better optimized for modern graphics APIs. The average benchmark score tells a nuanced story: the 610M averages 5444 across both tests, while the 840M averages 5322, making the AMD part roughly 2.3% faster on average.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the AMD Radeon 610M's average score of 5444 places it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416). The 840M's 5322 average is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.3% difference). Interestingly, the 840M is 0.7% faster than the GeForce 940M (5284) but 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon 610M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 100 mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the much older Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, with a smaller 77 mm² die but containing 1,020 million transistors. This makes the transistor density starkly different: the 840M packs 13.2M transistors per mm², while the 610M's density is not listed but its smaller node would suggest a much higher figure.

The 610M features 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, along with 2 dedicated ray tracing cores. The 840M has significantly more shading units at 384, along with 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, but lacks any ray tracing hardware. Clock speeds favor the AMD part, with a base of 1500 MHz and boost of 1900 MHz, versus the 840M's 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the 610M uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the 840M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus delivering 16.02 GB/s.

The 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 840M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 610M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, whereas the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Power consumption is dramatically different, with the 610M rated at 15 W TDP compared to the 840M's 33 W, despite the 610M being an integrated graphics processor (IGP) like the 840M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a higher average benchmark score of 5444, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 5322. This represents approximately a 2.3% advantage for the AMD part across both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: Why does the NVIDIA GeForce 840M win the OpenCL test so decisively?

A: The 840M scores 5764 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.3% higher than the 610M's 4535. This likely stems from its higher shading unit count (384 vs 128) and dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory, which can be advantageous in certain compute workloads that scale with shader throughput.

Q: How significant is the AMD Radeon 610M's Vulkan advantage?

A: The 610M's Vulkan score of 6353 is 30.2% higher than the 840M's 4880. This is a substantial margin that suggests the RDNA 2.0 architecture's modern design, including its 2 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, provides much better performance in Vulkan-based applications.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in overall market position?

A: Yes, they are very closely matched. The 610M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M is at the 31st percentile. Their nearest rivals overlap in performance range, with the 610M trading places with the Quadro M4000 and R7 M365X, and the 840M matching the GeForce 930A and GTX 980M in average scores.

Q: What are the key power and efficiency differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W, which is less than half of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 33 W TDP. This efficiency difference is enabled by the 610M's 6 nm process node compared to the 840M's 28 nm node, making the AMD part significantly more power-efficient per unit of performance.

Q: Does the memory configuration affect real-world performance?

A: The 840M's dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance, while the 610M relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the 610M's memory performance varies based on the host system's memory configuration, potentially affecting frame pacing in memory-intensive scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is the most dramatic difference: 6 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA, representing multiple generations of manufacturing advancement. The 610M has a larger die at 100 mm² compared to 77 mm², but the 840M uses 1,020 million transistors to the 610M's unspecified count, giving the 840M a transistor density of 13.2M / mm².

Clock speeds favor AMD significantly: 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost versus the 840M's 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The 840M has more execution resources with 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, but adds 2 ray tracing cores. Memory is a fundamental split: 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth for NVIDIA, versus System Shared memory for AMD.

Pixel and texture rates are close, with the 840M at 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the 610M's 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. However, FP32 performance reverses this: the 840M hits 863.2 GFLOPS versus the 610M's 486.4 GFLOPS. The 610M supports FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature the 840M lacks entirely. Power consumption strongly favors AMD at 15 W versus 33 W, and the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support also differs, with the 610M offering 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the 840M's 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on application type rather than overall superiority. The AMD Radeon 610M is the better GPU for modern graphics APIs and efficiency, evidenced by its 30.2% Vulkan advantage and 15 W TDP. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture with ray tracing support and DirectX 12 Ultimate makes it the forward-looking option, despite having fewer shading units and lower raw FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M, while older and less efficient, demonstrates that raw shader count can still matter in legacy compute workloads, winning the OpenCL test by 21.3% with its 384 shading units.

For users running Vulkan-based games or applications that leverage modern API features, the 610M's 6353 Vulkan score is compelling. For those relying on OpenCL compute tasks or older software stacks, the 840M's 5764 OpenCL score indicates better compatibility and performance in that specific domain. The 610M also offers superior power efficiency, consuming less than half the power of the 840M while maintaining a higher average benchmark score. The 840M's dedicated 2 GB memory provides a consistent memory footprint, which could be preferable in scenarios where system memory bandwidth is constrained.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 610M wins decisively in Vulkan-based workloads, posting a 6353 score that is 30.2% higher than the competition. This makes it the better choice for modern game engines and applications that utilize Vulkan's lower overhead and better multi-threading capabilities. Its 15 W TDP also makes it ideal for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount, and its 6 nm manufacturing process and ray tracing cores position it for future software optimizations. The 610M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) provides access to the latest graphics features, and its FP16 capability at 972.8 GFLOPS offers compute advantages in AI and machine learning workloads that can use reduced precision.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M claims victory in OpenCL-based applications, with its 5764 score representing a 21.3% margin over the 610M. Its 384 shading units and higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS) make it better suited for traditional compute tasks that rely heavily on shader count and single-precision floating-point operations. The 840M's dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth ensures consistent memory performance independent of system configuration, which can be advantageous in memory-sensitive applications. For users running older DirectX 11-era software, the 840M's mature Maxwell driver ecosystem may offer more stable performance, despite its lower average benchmark score of 5322 versus the 610M's 5444.