AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 740M but no recorded measurements for the AMD Radeon 840M. This means a direct head-to-head comparison of actual test results cannot be produced. The 740M shows two recorded scores: 10,172 in Geekbench OpenCL and 15,568 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving it an average benchmark score of 12,870. The 840M has no benchmark entries in the database, so its average score is listed as zero, and no nearest rivals are recorded for it.

What can be compared is the relative standing of the 740M against other GPUs in the database. The 740M sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of the recorded graphics processors. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered. The AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12,847, a 0.2% difference from the 740M. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 averages 12,831, a 0.3% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 also averages 12,830, another 0.3% difference. The AMD Radeon RX 580 averages 12,928, which is 0.4% ahead of the 740M. These deltas are small, all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the 740M performs essentially at parity with these four older discrete GPUs.

Because the 840M lacks benchmark data, the head-to-head section must be limited to architectural and specification analysis rather than measured performance. The 740M uses the Phoenix2 chip, while the 840M uses Krackan Point. Both are integrated graphics processors from AMD, but they belong to different architectural generations. The 740M is built on RDNA 3.0, while the 840M uses RDNA 3.5. This architectural difference is the primary factor that would likely separate their performance, but no benchmark numbers exist to quantify it.

Where Each One Wins

The 740M has measurable wins in the database. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 15,568 is substantially higher than its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,172, suggesting that the 740M handles Vulkan workloads particularly well relative to OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 12,870 places it just above the FirePro W5100, Radeon Pro 455, and GTX 590, and just below the RX 580. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the 740M shows clear strength.

The 840M has no recorded benchmark wins because no scores exist in the database. However, the specification data suggests where it might gain an advantage once measurements are available. The 840M has a higher boost clock at 2,900 MHz versus 2,800 MHz for the 740M. Its pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s for the 740M, a 3.6% advantage. Its texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s versus 44.80 GTexel/s, also a 3.6% advantage. These small clock and rate advantages could translate into wins in fill-rate-bound or texture-bound workloads, though no benchmark data confirms it.

The 840M also has a significantly lower TDP at 15 W versus 45 W for the 740M. For portable devices, this efficiency advantage is meaningful. The 840M is described as targeting portable devices, while the 740M is motherboard dependent. The 840M could win in sustained mobile workloads where power limits constrain performance, but again, this is inference from specifications rather than measured results.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 840M outperform the AMD Radeon 740M in any benchmark?

A: No benchmark data exists for the 840M in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and it has no recorded entries. The 740M has two recorded scores, with an average of 12,870.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon 740M?

A: The 740M averages 12,870 across its recorded benchmarks. It scores 10,172 in Geekbench OpenCL and 15,568 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 740M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 740M is essentially at parity with four nearby GPUs. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5100, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 455, 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 580.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2,900 MHz, while the AMD Radeon 740M has a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The 840M is 100 MHz higher.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 740M has a TDP of 45 W, while the AMD Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W. The 840M uses significantly less power.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The 740M is built on the Phoenix2 chip, while the 840M uses the Krackan Point chip.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several core specifications but differ in other key areas. Both have 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Both also have 4 ray tracing cores. The memory configuration is identical in both: system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent.

Clock speeds differ. The 740M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The 840M starts lower but boosts higher.

Pixel and texture rates differ slightly. The 740M delivers 22.40 GPixel/s and 44.80 GTexel/s. The 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The 840M is ahead in both by the same percentage.

Floating point performance differs markedly. The 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, which converts to approximately 1.485 TFLOPS. The 740M has nearly double the raw FP32 throughput.

Power consumption differs substantially. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W, while the 840M has a TDP of 15 W. The 840M uses one-third the power of the 740M.

Release dates differ. The 740M was released on January 30, 2024. The 840M was released on February 28, 2025, roughly 13 months later.

Transistor data differs. The 740M has 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 152.6 million per mm². The 840M has unknown transistor count and die size, so no density figure is recorded.

Display outputs differ. The 740M is motherboard dependent, while the 840M is portable device dependent. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is clear. The 740M is built on RDNA 3.0, while the 840M uses RDNA 3.5. This is a generation step within AMD's RDNA family. The 740M uses the Phoenix2 chip and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

Both are listed as having a 4 nm process node from TSMC. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have 4 ray tracing cores, indicating hardware ray tracing support in each.

The 740M has a predecessor listed as Navi II IGP and a successor listed as Navi III IGP. The 840M also lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor, but has no successor recorded. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1 for both GPUs, meaning neither has a dedicated half-precision boost. The 740M's FP32 output is 2.867 TFLOPS, while the 840M's is 1,484.8 GFLOPS. This is a significant architectural performance difference despite the same core counts.

The 740M's transistor count of 20,900 million on a 137 mm² die is fully documented. The 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown, which limits architectural comparison beyond the RDNA generation difference.

The Verdict

The data in the database presents an incomplete picture for direct comparison. The 740M has recorded benchmarks showing it performs at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 12,870. It sits in a tight cluster of rivals, all within 0.4% of its score. For users relying on measured performance, the 740M is a known quantity: it matches older discrete GPUs like the FirePro W5100, Radeon Pro 455, GTX 590, and RX 580 within fractions of a percent.

The 840M has no benchmark data at all. Its average score is zero, and it has no nearest rivals recorded. What the specification data shows is a GPU with a higher boost clock (2,900 MHz versus 2,800 MHz), higher pixel and texture rates (23.20 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s, and 46.40 GTexel/s versus 44.80 GTexel/s), and dramatically lower power consumption (15 W versus 45 W). However, its FP32 throughput is roughly half that of the 740M (1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 2.867 TFLOPS).

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput and already know the 740M's measured standing, the 740M is the safer choice based on available data. It delivers proven Vulkan performance with a score of 15,568 and OpenCL performance with a score of 10,172. Its higher FP32 output suggests better performance in compute-heavy workloads.

For users who prioritize power efficiency and portability, the 840M is the clear specification winner. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the 740M's 45 W, and its display outputs are tied to portable devices. The newer RDNA 3.5 architecture may bring efficiency or feature improvements over RDNA 3.0, but no benchmark data confirms this.

The 840M's higher boost clock and fill rates could give it an edge in specific workloads despite lower FP32 throughput. Its pixel rate and texture rate advantages are real but small, both at 3.6% over the 740M. These could matter in gaming or graphics-bound scenarios where fill rate limits performance.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the 740M is the only one with measured performance, and that performance is respectable, sitting just above the 50th percentile. The 840M is an unmeasured quantity with a compelling efficiency profile and newer architecture. Users who need validated numbers should choose the 740M. Users who prioritize low power draw and are willing to wait for benchmark data should consider the 840M. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.