AMD Radeon 680M vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon 680M and the AMD Radeon 840M. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither component registers a win in the wins columns.

For the AMD Radeon 680M, the available benchmark results show a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378 points, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,468 points, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965 points. These figures produce an average benchmark score of 15,270 points, placing the 680M at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The AMD Radeon 840M currently has no recorded benchmark scores. Its benchmark array is empty, its average benchmark score is 0 points, and its percentile stands at 50. This absence of data means a direct quantitative comparison of measured performance is impossible from the recorded information.

The 680M's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 averages 15,283 points, which is 0.1% ahead of the 680M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 averages 15,290 points, also 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199 points, which is 0.5% behind the 680M. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 averages 15,171 points, 0.7% behind the 680M. These deltas are narrow, indicating that the 680M sits in a tightly clustered performance band.

Because the 840M has no benchmark entries, the database cannot place it relative to the 680M or any other GPU using measured scores. The percentile field for the 840M is 50, but with an average score of 0, this percentile likely reflects an unranked or provisional status rather than a derived performance position.

Architecture Differences

The two iGPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon 680M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture and is built on the Rembrandt+ chip, belonging to the Navi II IGP generation (Rembrandt Mobile). The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture and is built on the Krackan Point chip, belonging to the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile).

The manufacturing process differs considerably. The 680M is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the 840M uses a 4 nm process at the same foundry. The 680M contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 63.0 million transistors per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, with no density figure available.

The compute unit configuration shows a substantial divergence. The 680M carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. This means the 680M has three times the shading units of the 840M, three times the TMUs, four times the ROPs, and three times the RT cores.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The 680M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The 840M has a base clock of only 400 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 840M's boost ceiling is 700 MHz higher than the 680M's, yet its base clock is 1600 MHz lower.

Theoretical throughput numbers reflect the configuration differences. The 680M delivers a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s. The 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The 680M's FP32 performance is 3.379 TFLOPS, while the 840M's FP32 performance is 1,484.8 GFLOPS, or roughly 1.485 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures also diverge: the 680M reaches 6.758 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the 840M reaches 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput.

Power targets differ substantially. The 680M has a TDP of 50 W, while the 840M has a TDP of 15 W. Both are IGP parts with no power connectors and use system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

API support is identical. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the AMD Radeon 680M for raw compute capability. Its FP32 throughput of 3.379 TFLOPS is more than double the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is roughly three times the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 105.6 GTexel/s is more than double the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. The 680M also carries three times the shading units, TMUs, and RT cores, plus four times the ROPs.

The 840M counters with a higher boost clock of 2900 MHz versus 2200 MHz, a smaller 4 nm process node versus 6 nm, and a much lower TDP of 15 W versus 50 W. The 840M also belongs to a newer architectural generation, RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 2.0, and a newer chip, Krackan Point versus Rembrandt+.

For users prioritizing measured or derived performance, the 680M is the clear choice based on the database figures. The 680M has an actual average benchmark score of 15,270 points and a 57th percentile ranking, while the 840M has no benchmark scores at all. The 680M's nearest rivals, such as the RTX 2060 at 15,290 points and GTX 580 at 15,283 points, are within 0.1% of its average, placing it in established desktop discrete GPU territory.

For users prioritizing power efficiency and architectural recency, the 840M has the advantage on paper. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the 680M's 50 W TDP, and its 4 nm process suggests a denser, more modern design. However, without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm whether the 840M's higher boost clock and newer architecture translate into competitive real-world performance.

The 840M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, which is the 680M's generation, indicating a direct lineage. The 680M's successor is listed as Navi III IGP, which is the 840M's generation. This confirms the 840M is positioned as the successor to the 680M in the database's product hierarchy.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in the following recorded fields:

• Chip: Rembrandt+ (680M) versus Krackan Point (840M)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 (680M) versus RDNA 3.5 (840M)
• Generation: Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) (680M) versus Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) (840M)
• Process node: 6 nm (680M) versus 4 nm (840M)
• Transistors: 13,100 million (680M) versus unknown (840M)
• Die size: 208 mm² (680M) versus unknown (840M)
• Transistor density: 63.0M / mm² (680M) versus null (840M)
• Base clock: 2000 MHz (680M) versus 400 MHz (840M)
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz (680M) versus 2900 MHz (840M)
• Shading units: 768 (680M) versus 256 (840M)
• TMUs: 48 (680M) versus 16 (840M)
• ROPs: 32 (680M) versus 8 (840M)
• RT cores: 12 (680M) versus 4 (840M)
• Pixel rate: 70.40 GPixel/s (680M) versus 23.20 GPixel/s (840M)
• Texture rate: 105.6 GTexel/s (680M) versus 46.40 GTexel/s (840M)
• FP32: 3.379 TFLOPS (680M) versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (840M)
• FP16: 6.758 TFLOPS (2:1) (680M) versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) (840M)
• TDP: 50 W (680M) versus 15 W (840M)
• Release date: 2023-01-02 (680M) versus 2025-02-28 (840M)
• Predecessor: Vega II IGP (680M) versus Navi II IGP (840M)
• Successor: Navi III IGP (680M) versus null (840M)

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (AMD), memory configuration (system shared with system-dependent bandwidth), slot width (IGP), power connectors (none), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), display outputs (portable device dependent), and all API support levels.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, the Radeon 680M or the Radeon 840M?

A: The Radeon 680M has 768 shading units, which is three times the 256 shading units found on the Radeon 840M.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the Radeon 680M has a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The 840M boosts 700 MHz higher.

Q: Does the Radeon 680M have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: Yes. The Radeon 680M has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 378, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,468, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,965, producing an average score of 15,270.

Q: Does the Radeon 840M have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Radeon 840M has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals recorded.

Q: How does the Radeon 680M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 in average score?

A: The Radeon 680M averages 15,270 points, while the RTX 2060 averages 15,290 points. The RTX 2060 is 0.1% ahead.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 680M has a TDP of 50 W, and the Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 680M wins on measured performance. Its average benchmark score of 15,270 points and 57th percentile ranking stand against the 840M's zero recorded scores. The 680M also wins on raw throughput metrics: FP32 at 3.379 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS, pixel rate at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 105.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. It has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and RT cores. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 2060 and GTX 580, both within 0.1% of its average score, indicating desktop-class performance for an IGP.

The Radeon 840M wins on power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the 680M's 50 W TDP, making it suited for lower-power mobile platforms. It also wins on architectural recency, using RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm process versus RDNA 2.0 on 6 nm. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz is higher than the 680M's 2200 MHz, and its base clock of 400 MHz is lower, suggesting a wider dynamic range for power management. The 840M's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the 680M doubles FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The 840M is also released more recently, with a 2025-02-28 date versus 2023-01-02 for the 680M.

For workloads that depend on raw shader throughput, texture fill, pixel fill, or ray tracing core count, the 680M is the stronger part according to the recorded specifications. For thermally constrained systems or battery-oriented usage, the 840M's lower TDP and newer process node provide a structural advantage, though the database lacks benchmark confirmation of its real-world performance.