AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon 880M Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon 880M are both integrated graphics solutions from AMD, built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The 840M is based on the Krackan Point chip, while the 880M uses the larger Strix Point chip. Both belong to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation and share identical base and boost clocks of 400 MHz and 2900 MHz respectively. Memory is system shared in both cases, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The 840M is the more recent release, dated 2025-02-28, while the 880M appeared on 2024-07-14. Both are listed as Active in production status, use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The data shows a clear separation in compute resources, with the 880M carrying three times the shading units, three times the texture mapping units, and double the render output units of the 840M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data for the AMD Radeon 880M spans multiple test suites, while the database contains no benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon 840M. This absence of direct head-to-head results means the comparison relies on the architectural specifications and the 880M's absolute scores, interpreted against its nearest rivals.

The 880M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 535. In Geekbench, the 880M records an OpenCL score of 31,285 and a Vulkan score of 40,006. Passmark results for the 880M include a G3D score of 7,615, a G2D score of 969, and a GPU compute score of 3,719. DirectX legacy tests show scores of 97 for DirectX 9, 73 for DirectX 11, 32 for DirectX 12, and 31 for DirectX 10.

The 840M has no scores in any of these tests, so its measured performance cannot be stated from the database. The specification sheet provides the only quantitative basis for comparison. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 200% increase in shading units and TMUs, and a 100% increase in ROPs. Pixel rate for the 840M is 23.20 GPixel/s, while the 880M reaches 46.40 GPixel/s, exactly double. Texture rate shows a larger gap: 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M versus 139.2 GTexel/s for the 880M, a threefold difference. FP32 compute is listed at 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M and 4.454 TFLOPS for the 880M, which translates to the 880M being approximately three times faster in raw floating-point throughput. FP16 performance is identical in ratio, with both listed as 1:1 relative to FP32.

The nearest rivals for the 880M, as recorded in the database, place its average benchmark score of 8,436 in context. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX averages 8,427, putting the 880M 0.1% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8,458, putting the 880M 0.3% behind. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M averages 8,462, also 0.3% behind. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8,325, putting the 880M 1.3% ahead. These deltas are narrow, indicating the 880M sits within a tight competitive cluster among older discrete mobile GPUs.

The 840M, by contrast, has no nearest rivals listed and no average benchmark score, so its standing in the database's overall rankings cannot be quantified relative to specific competitors. It does carry a percentile versus all GPUs of 50, while the 880M carries a percentile of 43. This percentile difference suggests that, based on the database's aggregate classification, the 840M is positioned slightly higher in the overall distribution of all GPUs, despite lacking direct benchmark results. The 880M's average benchmark score of 8,436 and its percentile of 43 indicate that its measured performance places it in the lower half of all recorded GPUs, while the 840M's unmeasured status still results in a median percentile assignment.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 880M is the substantially stronger part on paper. Its shading unit count of 768 triples the 840M's 256, and its FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS is triple the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same 3x pattern, and pixel rate doubles. For any workload that scales with shader count, texture fetch, or rasterization throughput, the 880M holds a decisive theoretical advantage.

The 880M's measured scores place it in the vicinity of older discrete GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 8,436 is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and it edges the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX by 0.1% and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X by 1.3%. This suggests that, based on recorded results, the 880M delivers performance comparable to that class of discrete mobile graphics.

The 840M has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentile of 50 is higher than the 880M's 43, but this does not compensate for the lack of any measured performance data. The 840M is positioned as a smaller, lower-throughput IGP within the same architecture generation. It uses the same 4 nm process, the same RDNA 3.5 architecture, and the same clock speeds, but with one third of the compute units and half the ROPs.

The 880M also has a larger physical implementation. The Strix Point chip is recorded at 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, with a transistor density of 145.9 million transistors per mm². The 840M's Krackan Point chip has unknown transistor count and die size in the database. The 880M's additional silicon directly corresponds to its expanded execution resources.

For a system builder choosing between these two IGPs, the 880M is the one with demonstrated results. The 840M may be adequate for lighter duties, but the database contains no evidence of its performance level. The 880M's benchmark scores, while not class-leading, are real and place it alongside established discrete mobile parts. The 840M's lack of data means no performance claim can be supported from the recorded information.

Where Each One Wins

The 880M wins in every category where the database provides comparable specifications. It has triple the shading units, triple the TMUs, double the ROPs, triple the FP32 compute, triple the FP16 compute, triple the texture rate, and double the pixel rate. It also has 12 ray tracing cores versus 4 in the 840M, a threefold advantage in that specialty hardware. The 880M's transistor budget of 34,000 million and die size of 233 mm² are recorded, while the 840M's are unknown, further indicating a larger, more capable design.

The 840M's only recorded advantage is its percentile of 50 versus the 880M's 43, and its later release date of 2025-02-28 versus 2024-07-14. Neither of these is a performance metric. The percentile may reflect the database's classification of unmeasured parts, not actual compute superiority.

In terms of measured application performance, the 880M's Passmark G3D score of 7,615 and GPU compute score of 3,719 indicate solid general 3D rendering and compute capability. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 40,006 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 31,285, suggesting the Vulkan driver path extracts more performance in that particular test. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 535 provides a modern DirectX 12 workload result.

For legacy DirectX performance, the 880M shows a peculiar pattern: DirectX 9 scores 97, DirectX 11 scores 73, DirectX 12 scores 32, and DirectX 10 scores 31. The higher score in the older DirectX 9 API compared to newer APIs is a characteristic of the recorded results, though the database does not explain the cause.

The 840M, lacking any benchmark entries, cannot be assigned wins in any measured test. Its lower ROP count of 8 versus 16 suggests reduced fill-rate performance in pixel-bound scenes, and its 16 TMUs versus 48 limit texture-heavy workloads. The 4 ray tracing cores versus 12 indicate weaker ray-traced effects.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units. The 880M has exactly three times the shading unit count.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The 880M is approximately three times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How does the 880M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 880M's average benchmark score is 8,436. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, 0.3% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both use RDNA 3.5 architecture and are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. They both belong to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation and share base and boost clocks of 400 MHz and 2900 MHz.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each GPU?

A: The 840M has a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.40 GTexel/s. The 880M has a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s. The 880M doubles the pixel rate and triples the texture rate.

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

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon 840M. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals recorded. The 880M has ten benchmark scores across multiple test suites.

Architecture Differences

The two IGPs share a common architectural foundation but diverge significantly in execution resources. Both are built on RDNA 3.5, use a 4 nm TSMC process, and belong to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Both are integrated graphics parts with no power connectors, a 15 W TDP, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

The chip implementations differ. The 880M uses the Strix Point chip, which the database records at 34,000 million transistors and a 233 mm² die size, yielding a transistor density of 145.9 million transistors per mm². The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip, with unknown transistor count and die size. This physical difference explains the resource gap: the Strix Point chip packs substantially more logic.

Compute resources show a consistent 3:1 ratio in most scalar and vector units. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 12 ray tracing cores, while the 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The ROP count is 16 versus 8, a 2:1 ratio. Both parts share the same 400 MHz base clock and 2900 MHz boost clock, so all throughput differences stem from unit counts, not clock speeds.

Memory architecture is identical in abstraction: both use system shared memory, with system shared type and bus width, and bandwidth listed as system dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The practical memory performance would depend on the host platform's memory subsystem, which the database does not specify for either part.

Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores recorded. FP16 and FP32 rates are listed at a 1:1 ratio for both, meaning there is no separate half-precision acceleration path in the recorded specifications. The 880M's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at 4.454 TFLOPS, and the 840M's FP16 matches its FP32 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

The production status for both is Active, and both list their predecessor as Navi II IGP. Neither has a successor recorded. The 880M was released on 2024-07-14, and the 840M on 2025-02-28, making the 840M the later part despite being the smaller one. The 880M's larger die and transistor count, combined with its measured benchmark scores, indicate that AMD positioned it as the higher-performance IGP in this pairing, while the 840M serves as a more modest option within the same generation.