AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon 840M occupy different positions in the integrated graphics landscape, and the recorded data shows a clear split in their intended usage profiles. The Radeon 760M, built on the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, has a substantial library of benchmark results across multiple test suites. Its average benchmark score of 6019 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and it sits within a tight competitive cluster around the 6000-point mark. The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001 points (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 points (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 points (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 points (0.5% ahead). This places the 760M in a narrow band of performance where it trades blows with dedicated discrete GPUs from previous generations.

The Radeon 840M, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score sits at 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The 840M does carry a higher percentile ranking at 50th percentile versus the 760M's 35th percentile, but this ranking cannot be substantiated by direct measured performance data in the database. The win condition between these two parts cannot be determined from benchmark results because the 840M lacks any recorded test scores. What the data does show is that the 760M has established, measurable performance across DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and 3DMark Steel Nomad, while the 840M exists in the database as a specification entry only.

The use-case split is therefore defined by data availability rather than performance deltas. The 760M wins in every measurable category simply because it has measurements. Its PassMark G3D score of 5310, its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20255, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336 provide concrete reference points for system builders and analysts. The 840M, with its higher percentile ranking and newer RDNA 3.5 architecture, remains an unverified entry that cannot be compared head-to-head until benchmark data is recorded and published.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two integrated GPUs is substantial despite both carrying the AMD brand and using the same 4 nm TSMC process node. The Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process, but its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The compute configuration differs sharply. The 760M fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The 840M fields exactly half of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. This halving of the execution resources is reflected in the pixel and texture throughput figures. The 760M delivers 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s, while the 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rate for the 760M is 5.323 TFLOPS, and the 840M posts 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is approximately 28% of the 760M's throughput. Both parts run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the same proportional relationship holds in half-precision work.

Clock behavior also differs. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The 840M has a lower base clock of 400 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 840M's higher boost clock partially compensates for its reduced shader count, but the math still leaves it well behind in raw throughput. Both parts carry a TDP of 15 W and use no power connectors, reflecting their integrated nature. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interfaces. The 760M's display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the 840M's are portable device dependent, indicating their different target platforms: the 760M for laptops and mini PCs with standard motherboards, the 840M for portable devices.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as Active in production status, and both list Navi II IGP as their predecessor. The 760M released on 2024-01-30, while the 840M released on 2025-02-28, roughly thirteen months later. The 840M's RDNA 3.5 architecture is a newer revision, but the database does not specify what architectural improvements RDNA 3.5 brings over RDNA 3.0 beyond the different chip design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark comparison between these two GPUs is constrained by the absence of recorded scores for the 840M. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries, and the 840M's benchmark array is empty. This means no direct numerical comparison can be made for any individual test. The 760M's individual scores do provide a reference frame: 400 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 20255 in Geekbench OpenCL, 30336 in Geekbench Vulkan, 19 in PassMark DirectX 10, 52 in PassMark DirectX 11, 25 in PassMark DirectX 12, 65 in PassMark DirectX 9, 890 in PassMark G2D, 5310 in PassMark G3D, and 2840 in PassMark GPU Compute.

The 760M's nearest rival data shows how it performs against discrete GPUs. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. These deltas are small, placing the 760M in a performance tier where the differences are within measurement noise. The Quadro P2000, a professional workstation GPU, edges out the integrated 760M by half a percentage point.

For the 840M, the absence of data means its 50th percentile ranking cannot be verified against any measured workload. The percentile field suggests it ranks higher among all GPUs than the 760M's 35th percentile, but without benchmark scores, this remains an unverified claim. The specification data suggests the 840M should be slower in raw compute throughput given its halved execution resources, but the higher boost clock of 2900 MHz and the newer RDNA 3.5 architecture could offset some of that deficit in real workloads. The database does not contain the measurements needed to confirm or refute this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What are the boost clocks of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 760M has a boost clock of 2599 MHz, and the Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process, though they use different chips: Phoenix for the 760M and Krackan Point for the 840M.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: Both the Radeon 760M and the Radeon 840M have a TDP of 15 W.

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

A: No, the Radeon 840M has an empty benchmark array with an average benchmark score of 0, while the Radeon 760M has scores across multiple test suites.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded specification fields:

• Chip: Phoenix (760M) versus Krackan Point (840M)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (760M) versus RDNA 3.5 (840M)
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Phoenix) (760M) versus Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) (840M)
• Transistors: 25,390 million (760M) versus unknown (840M)
• Die Size: 178 mm² (760M) versus unknown (840M)
• Transistor Density: 142.6M / mm² (760M) versus null (840M)
• Base Clock: 800 MHz (760M) versus 400 MHz (840M)
• Boost Clock: 2599 MHz (760M) versus 2900 MHz (840M)
• Shading Units: 512 (760M) versus 256 (840M)
• TMUs: 32 (760M) versus 16 (840M)
• ROPs: 16 (760M) versus 8 (840M)
• Ray Tracing Cores: 8 (760M) versus 4 (840M)
• Pixel Rate: 41.58 GPixel/s (760M) versus 23.20 GPixel/s (840M)
• Texture Rate: 83.17 GTexel/s (760M) versus 46.40 GTexel/s (840M)
• FP32 Compute: 5.323 TFLOPS (760M) versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (840M)
• FP16 Compute: 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) (760M) versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) (840M)
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent (760M) versus Portable Device Dependent (840M)
• Release Date: 2024-01-30 (760M) versus 2025-02-28 (840M)
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 35 (760M) versus 50 (840M)
• Average Benchmark Score: 6019 (760M) versus 0 (840M)
• Nearest Rivals: four listed for the 760M, none listed for the 840M

Shared specifications include the 4 nm TSMC process, 15 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, system-shared memory configuration with system-dependent bandwidth, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, Active production status, and Navi II IGP as predecessor. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.