AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon 860M clearly ahead of the AMD Radeon 840M in every measurable compute category. The 860M carries double the shading units, texture mapping units, render output units, and ray tracing cores compared to the 840M, and it also runs with a higher base and boost clock. The 860M produces a peak FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS, while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is exactly half. Pixel fill rate and texture fill rate follow the same pattern: the 860M reaches 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, versus 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M.

The 860M is the appropriate selection for any workload that depends on raw shader throughput, ray tracing, or higher fill rates. The 840M, with its smaller execution resource set, is suited to lighter graphical tasks where the lower compute ceiling is acceptable. Both parts share the same 15 W TDP, the same Krackan Point chip, the same RDNA 3.5 architecture, and the same 4 nm TSMC process node, so the 860M does not achieve its advantage through a different node or a higher power envelope; it achieves it purely through a larger configuration of identical architectural resources.

The 840M is the choice when the workload is modest and the reduced execution width is not a limiting factor. The 860M is the choice when the application can use additional shader and rasterization capacity. There is no scenario in the data where the 840M wins; the 860M holds a 100% advantage in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, FP32 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate. The 860M also places in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the 840M sits at the 50th percentile. The 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401, while the 840M has no recorded benchmark score in the database. For any buyer selecting between these two, the data consistently points to the 860M as the stronger part.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon 860M are built on the Krackan Point chip, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture, and belong to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process node. Neither has a publicly listed transistor count, die size, or transistor density in the database. Both are integrated graphics processors with a slot width of IGP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

The execution resource counts differ substantially. The 840M contains 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. The 860M contains 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. In each category, the 860M has exactly twice the hardware of the 840M. This doubling is consistent across the entire fixed-function and shader pipeline.

Clock speeds also favor the 860M. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The higher boost clock on the 860M compounds the resource advantage, meaning the 860M is not only wider but also runs at a higher peak frequency. Neither part lists a game clock in the database.

Memory configuration is identical in structure. Both use system shared memory, with system shared memory type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The 860M has no dedicated memory bandwidth advantage from the database; its bandwidth is simply system dependent, as is the 840M's. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as Active in production status, both released on 2025-02-28, and both list Navi II IGP as a predecessor. Neither has a listed successor. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The only architectural differences recorded are the doubling of execution units and the higher clock speeds on the 860M. The process node, architecture generation, chip, memory interface, and API support are otherwise identical. The FP32 and FP16 rates are both 1:1 on each part, meaning there is no separate half-rate or double-rate path for FP16 on either product. The 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, while the 860M produces 3.072 TFLOPS for both.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear split: the 860M wins in every recorded category, and the 840M has no recorded wins. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the wins count for the 840M is zero, while the wins count for the 860M is also zero. The 840M has no benchmark scores in the database at all, so its performance can only be inferred from its architectural specifications.

The 860M has two recorded benchmark scores. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 22,759. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scores 30,043. Its average benchmark score is 26,401. The 840M has no equivalent scores, so a direct benchmark comparison between the two is not possible from the recorded data. However, the architectural comparison shows the 860M at double the shader count, double the texture units, double the ROPs, double the RT cores, and roughly double the fill rates and compute throughput.

For use cases involving ray tracing, the 860M has 8 RT cores versus 4 on the 840M. For rasterization-heavy workloads, the 860M's 16 ROPs and 32 TMUs give it twice the pixel and texture throughput of the 840M. For general compute, the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 output is double the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The 860M also has a higher boost clock, 3000 MHz versus 2900 MHz, which adds further separation in peak performance.

The 840M can still handle graphical tasks, but its lower resource counts place it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The 860M sits at the 72nd percentile. That difference in percentile ranking reflects the 860M's stronger overall position in the database's performance distribution. The 840M is the lighter option, the 860M is the more capable option, and there is no recorded workload where the 840M comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster, the AMD Radeon 840M or the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M is faster in all recorded architectural categories. It has 512 shading units versus 256, 32 TMUs versus 16, 16 ROPs versus 8, and 8 RT cores versus 4. Its FP32 throughput is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS, and its boost clock is 3000 MHz versus 2900 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both use the RDNA 3.5 architecture, both are built on the Krackan Point chip, and both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process node. They belong to the same Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile.

Q: What benchmark scores does the Radeon 860M have?

A: The Radeon 860M scores 22,759 in Geekbench OpenCL and 30,043 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 26,401. The Radeon 840M has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average score of 26,401. It is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, which averages 26,421. It is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which averages 26,331. It is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, which averages 26,553, and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000, which averages 26,683.

Q: What memory type do both GPUs use?

A: Both use system shared memory with a system shared bus width. Memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent for both. Neither has dedicated VRAM in the database.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: Both the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon 860M have a TDP of 15 W. Neither requires a power connector, and both have a slot width of IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list between the 840M and the 860M is empty, so there are no direct comparison scores from the same test suite. The comparison must instead be drawn from the individual benchmark results and the architectural specifications recorded for each part.

The 860M's Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,759. The 840M has no Geekbench OpenCL score in the database. The 860M's Geekbench Vulkan score is 30,043. The 840M has no Geekbench Vulkan score. The average benchmark score for the 860M is 26,401, and the 840M's average benchmark score is 0, reflecting the absence of recorded benchmark data. This means the 860M holds a complete advantage in every measured benchmark category, though the comparison is limited by the 840M's lack of scores.

The architectural specifications provide a more complete picture of the performance gap. The 860M's FP32 output is 3.072 TFLOPS, which is exactly double the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The 860M's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, exactly double the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s. The 860M's texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, exactly double the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. The shading unit count doubles from 256 to 512, the TMU count doubles from 16 to 32, the ROP count doubles from 8 to 16, and the RT core count doubles from 4 to 8.

Clock speed adds a second layer of advantage. The 860M boosts to 3000 MHz, while the 840M boosts to 2900 MHz. The base clock is 600 MHz on the 860M and 400 MHz on the 840M. This means the 860M's execution units are not only twice as numerous, they also run at a higher peak frequency. The combination produces a compute throughput advantage that is greater than the raw doubling of resources would suggest, since the higher boost clock applies to every one of the 860M's 512 shading units.

The 860M's nearest rivals in the database put its performance into context. Its average score of 26,401 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, which averages 26,421, a difference of only 0.1%. It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 by 0.3%, with that card averaging 26,331. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary by 0.6%, which averages 26,553, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 by 1.1%, which averages 26,683. These small percentage differences place the 860M in a tight performance band among mobile and discrete GPUs, despite being an integrated part with a 15 W TDP.

The 840M, by contrast, has no nearest rivals listed and no benchmark scores. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the middle of the database's performance distribution, while the 860M's 72nd percentile places it well above the median. The 840M's half-width execution pipeline and lower clocks explain the percentile gap. The 840M has no recorded wins in any benchmark category, and the 860M has no recorded losses in any head-to-head comparison, because no head-to-head benchmarks exist in the database. The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the 860M is the stronger part by every recorded specification and measurement, and the 840M is a reduced configuration of the same architecture with half the compute resources and a lower peak clock.