AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon 840M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two integrated graphics processors along clear architectural lines. The AMD Radeon 780M, built on the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, posts recorded scores across three separate tests. The AMD Radeon 840M, using the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, has no recorded benchmark entries in the database at this time. This absence of data for the 840M means every measurable win in the current database belongs to the 780M.

The 780M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683. These three numbers establish a functional baseline for the older part. The 840M currently sits with an average benchmark score of zero and no individual test results, so the database cannot assign it any wins. The winsA and winsB counters reflect this: zero wins for each side, but the 780M has actual data while the 840M remains unmeasured.

The percentile ranking tells a similar story. The 780M holds the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The 840M holds the 50th percentile, a position that reflects its unmeasured status rather than real performance. A percentile at the midpoint with no scores attached indicates the database has placed it in a neutral position until testing produces numbers. The 780M's percentile is backed by three discrete measurements; the 840M's is a placeholder.

The use-case split, therefore, is not a contest between two measured parts. It is a comparison between a fully characterized integrated GPU and one that has no recorded performance data. The 780M wins every category where numbers exist: rasterization through the Steel Nomad test, general compute through OpenCL, and graphics API performance through Vulkan. The 840M wins no measured category because no category has been measured for it.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward selection process. Users choosing between these two integrated GPUs should look at what the database actually contains. The Radeon 780M has three verified benchmark scores and a 61st percentile standing. The Radeon 840M has no verified scores and a 50th percentile placeholder. From the recorded data alone, the 780M is the only part with demonstrated performance.

The 780M's average benchmark score of 17,588 places it in a tight cluster of competitors. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551, a 0.2 percent deficit. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509, a 0.5 percent deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17,639, a 0.3 percent lead over the 780M. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 averages 17,666, a 0.4 percent lead. These four rivals bracket the 780M within a half-percent band, showing that the integrated part performs at a level comparable to a range of discrete and professional GPUs.

The 840M has no rival list, no average score, and no benchmark entries. Selecting it would require accepting an unverified product profile. The database records its architecture as RDNA 3.5, newer than the 780M's RDNA 3.0, and its boost clock matches at 2,900 MHz. But architectural novelty without measured results does not translate into a performance recommendation. For anyone relying on the database, the 780M is the only choice with empirical backing. The 840M may eventually produce competitive numbers, but the current records do not support that conclusion.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array between these two GPUs is empty. No direct comparison tests exist in the database. The 780M's individual scores, however, provide a reference point. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480 measures DirectX 12 rasterization performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 measures general-purpose compute throughput. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683 measures Vulkan graphics and compute performance. These are the only hard numbers available.

The 780M's nearest rivals add context. Against the AMD Radeon Pro 560, the 780M leads by 0.2 percent in average score. Against the AMD Radeon Pro 460, it leads by 0.5 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 leads the 780M by 0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 leads by 0.4 percent. These deltas show that the 780M, despite being a 15 W integrated part, trades blows with dedicated desktop and professional cards from older generations. The margins are tiny, all under one percent, but they demonstrate the 780M's competitive position.

The 840M cannot be placed in any such comparison. With no benchmark scores and an empty rival list, the database offers nothing to measure against the 780M or anyone else. The 840M's theoretical specifications include a 2,900 MHz boost clock matching the 780M, but its shading unit count drops to 256 from the 780M's 768. Its texture mapping units fall to 16 from 48, and its render output units fall to 8 from 32. The 840M's FP32 throughput is listed at 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS. Those structural differences suggest the 840M will not match the 780M in raw throughput, but without benchmark results, that remains an inference from specifications rather than a measured outcome.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database lists an empty benchmarks array for the 840M, with an average benchmark score of zero and no individual test results.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 780M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 780M's average score of 17,588 is 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551, and 0.5 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 leads the 780M by 0.3 percent, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17,666 leads by 0.4 percent.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 780M sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: Both GPUs share the same boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz, while the 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz.

Q: What are the key specification differences between the two chips?

A: The 780M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0, 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5, 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. Both use TSMC's 4 nm process.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588. The Radeon 840M has an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting its lack of recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs come from different chips and different generations of RDNA. The Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip, built on RDNA 3.0, and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip, built on RDNA 3.5, and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process, and both are active production parts. The 780M was released on January 30, 2024; the 840M followed on February 28, 2025.

The compute resources differ substantially. The 780M carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The 840M carries 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. That is a 3:1 ratio in shading units, a 3:1 ratio in texture mapping units, and a 4:1 ratio in render output units. The 780M's pixel rate is listed at 92.80 GPixel/s, versus the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s. The 780M's texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s, versus the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. Floating point throughput follows the same pattern: the 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS in both formats.

Clock behavior also differs. The 780M runs a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The 840M runs a base clock of 400 MHz and the same 2,900 MHz boost. Both parts have a 15 W TDP and use system-shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host system. Both connect via PCIe 4.0 x8. The 780M's display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the 840M's are portable device dependent, reflecting their intended hosts.

The 780M's die is 178 mm² with 25,390 million transistors and a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The 840M's die size, transistor count, and density are listed as unknown or null in the database. The 780M has a predecessor in Navi II IGP and a successor in Navi III IGP. The 840M lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor and no successor. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 780M is a larger, more fully equipped part; the 840M is a leaner implementation of a newer architecture revision. The database has full specifications for the 780M but incomplete specifications for the 840M, which matches its lack of benchmark data.