AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is decisively faster than the AMD Radeon 740M in every direct benchmark comparison, leading by 78.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 71.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. However, the Radeon 740M posts a higher average benchmark score (12870 vs 11842) and a better percentile ranking (53rd vs 51st percentile), which reflects its broader driver optimization and efficiency in integrated settings rather than raw compute dominance. The RX 6500 XT is the clear choice for dedicated graphics workloads, while the 740M serves as a power-efficient integrated solution with a more favorable position in the overall GPU distribution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins with a score of 48289, which is 78.9% higher than the Radeon 740M’s 10172.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 54724, defeating the 740M’s 15568 by a 71.6% margin.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon 740M has a higher average benchmark score of 12870, compared to the RX 6500 XT’s 11842.

Q: What is the Radeon 740M’s percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The 740M sits at the 53rd percentile, slightly above the RX 6500 XT’s 51st percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores, while the 740M has only 4.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the 740M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system-dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 740M is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture using TSMC’s 4 nm process, featuring a Phoenix2 chip that integrates 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 152.6 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, with a Navi 24 chip containing just 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die — a transistor density of only 50.5 million per mm².

The RDNA 3.0 architecture in the 740M is designed for power efficiency and integration, with 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The RX 6500 XT’s RDNA 2.0 design is more compute-focused, packing 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the 740M’s newer architecture allows for a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, whereas the RX 6500 XT offers a 2:1 FP16 advantage (11.53 TFLOPS FP16 vs 5.765 TFLOPS FP32). The 740M also has 4 ray tracing cores versus the RX 6500 XT’s 16, indicating a significant difference in ray tracing throughput.

The process node difference is stark: the 740M’s 4 nm node enables a much higher transistor density, but the RX 6500 XT compensates with a larger shading unit count and dedicated memory interface. The 740M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 45 W TDP, while the RX 6500 XT is a dual-slot discrete card with a 107 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The RX 6500 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is narrower than the 740M’s PCIe 4.0 x8, though the latter’s memory bandwidth is system-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is stark and one-sided. The RX 6500 XT wins both available head-to-head tests, with the 740M failing to secure a single victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48289 against the 740M’s 10172, a delta of -78.9% for the integrated part. This is a massive gap that illustrates the compute advantage of a dedicated GPU with 4x more shading units and dedicated GDDR6 memory.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RX 6500 XT achieves 54724, while the 740M manages only 15568, resulting in a -71.6% delta. The RX 6500 XT’s 16 ray tracing cores and higher texture rate (180.2 GTexel/s vs 44.80 GTexel/s) contribute to this margin. The RX 6500 XT also delivers 90.08 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the 740M’s 22.40 GPixel/s, further cementing its lead in rasterization-heavy workloads.

It is importantly the 740M’s average benchmark score of 12870 is actually higher than the RX 6500 XT’s 11842. This paradox stems from the fact that the 740M’s benchmarks are limited to Geekbench tests, where it scores 10172 and 15568, while the RX 6500 XT’s average includes a broader set of tests, some of which (like Passmark DirectX 9 at 108 and Passmark G2D at 815) are lower. The RX 6500 XT’s Passmark G3D score of 9608 and GPU compute score of 4456 provide context for its gaming and compute capabilities, but the 740M’s percentile ranking of 53rd versus the RX 6500 XT’s 51st indicates the integrated part is more consistently positioned in the overall GPU landscape.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between the AMD Radeon 740M and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is wide and affects every aspect of performance. The 740M uses 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the RX 6500 XT quadruples the shading units to 1024, increases TMUs to 64, and ROPs to 32. The RX 6500 XT also has 16 ray tracing cores versus the 740M’s 4, a 4x difference that impacts ray-traced workloads.

Clock speeds differ significantly: the 740M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the RX 6500 XT operates at a base of 2310 MHz, a boost of 2815 MHz, and a game clock of 2610 MHz. The RX 6500 XT’s memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 740M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth labeled as "System Dependent." The RX 6500 XT’s memory clock is 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Compute output diverges sharply: the 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 2.867 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the RX 6500 XT produces 5.765 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.53 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Pixel and texture rates favor the RX 6500 XT at 90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s, respectively, versus the 740M’s 22.40 GPixel/s and 44.80 GTexel/s. Power consumption also differs: the 740M is a 45 W IGP with no power connectors, while the RX 6500 XT is a 107 W dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

The process node is a key differentiator: the 740M uses 4 nm TSMC with 20,900 million transistors, while the RX 6500 XT uses 6 nm TSMC with 5,400 million transistors. The 740M’s die size is 137 mm² versus the RX 6500 XT’s 107 mm², and its transistor density is 152.6M/mm² versus 50.5M/mm². The 740M has a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 6500 XT has a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. Display outputs also differ: the 740M is motherboard-dependent, while the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins in every direct benchmark and in raw compute specifications. Its 4x shading unit count, 4x TMU count, and 4x ROP count translate to a 78.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 71.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 6500 XT’s dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth is a major advantage over the 740M’s system-shared memory, which is system-dependent. The RX 6500 XT also has 16 ray tracing cores, 4x more than the 740M, and its FP32 throughput of 5.765 TFLOPS is double the 740M’s 2.867 TFLOPS. For gaming, the RX 6500 XT’s 90.08 GPixel/s pixel rate and 180.2 GTexel/s texture rate are significantly higher, making it the better choice for rasterization-heavy titles.

The 740M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 45 W TDP is less than half of the RX 6500 XT’s 107 W, and it requires no power connectors or additional PSU headroom. The 740M’s 4 nm process node and 152.6M/mm² transistor density indicate a more advanced manufacturing process, which contributes to its lower power draw. The 740M also has a higher average benchmark score (12870 vs 11842) and a better percentile ranking (53rd vs 51st), suggesting that its performance is more consistent across the limited benchmarks available. For laptop or compact system builders, the 740M’s IGP form factor eliminates the need for a discrete card, saving space and power.

The RX 6500 XT is the winner for dedicated gaming and compute workloads where raw performance matters. The 740M is the winner for power-constrained integrated systems where the GPU must share memory with the CPU. The RX 6500 XT’s Passmark scores (9608 G3D, 4456 GPU compute) and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 235 provide additional evidence of its gaming capability, while the 740M’s Geekbench scores are its only benchmark data.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the superior GPU for performance-focused users. The data shows a 78.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 71.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, with 4x the shading units, 4x the TMUs, 4x the ROPs, and 4x the ray tracing cores. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth and 5.765 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a capable entry-level discrete graphics card. The RX 6500 XT’s launch MSRP is 199 USD. It is end-of-life, but it remains a solid option for 1080p gaming at medium settings.

The AMD Radeon 740M is the better choice for integrated graphics in thin-and-light laptops or low-power desktops. Its 45 W TDP, 4 nm process, and system-shared memory make it an efficient solution for everyday tasks and light gaming. Its higher average benchmark score (12870) and 53rd percentile ranking versus the RX 6500 XT’s 51st percentile suggest that, despite losing all head-to-head tests, it is not a poor performer in the broader GPU context. The 740M’s 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.40 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for basic workloads, but it cannot match the RX 6500 XT in compute-heavy or gaming scenarios.

The verdict is clear: choose the RX 6500 XT if you need dedicated performance and have the power budget for a 107 W card with a 300 W PSU. Choose the 740M if you prioritize power efficiency and integration over raw speed. The RX 6500 XT wins on every head-to-head benchmark, but the 740M’s efficiency and percentile position make it a valid alternative for specific use cases. The data does not support the 740M as a gaming or compute replacement for the RX 6500 XT — it is a different class of product serving a different purpose.