AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D occupy entirely separate performance classes, and the recorded data makes that separation unambiguous. The 840M is an integrated graphics processor built for mobility, drawing 15 W and sharing system memory. The AI PRO 9600D is a professional discrete card with a 150 W power envelope, 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and a 256-bit memory bus. The benchmark database shows no direct head-to-head measurements between the two, but the architectural specifications alone determine which workloads each part will dominate.

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput. As an IGP with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output, it is designed to slot into thin-and-light laptops where a discrete card cannot fit. Its 4 nm process node matches the AI PRO 9600D, but its 15 W TDP means it can run in systems without active cooling for a discrete GPU. The 840M also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is sufficient for an integrated part sharing system memory. For everyday graphics, light content creation, and battery-conscious computing, the 840M is the only viable option of the two because the AI PRO 9600D requires a 450 W suggested PSU and a single-slot physical presence.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins in every compute-heavy and memory-intensive category. Its 3072 shading units dwarf the 840M's 256. Its 192 texture mapping units compare to 16, and its 96 ROPs compare to 8. The AI PRO 9600D has 48 ray tracing cores versus 4 on the 840M. The discrete card's 32 GB GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth completely outclasses the 840M's system-shared memory, whose bandwidth is system dependent. The AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 840M manages 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a factor of roughly 16.7x. The AI PRO 9600D also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling the interface width and doubling the generation versus the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8. For rendering, AI inference, professional visualization, and any workload that scales with memory bandwidth and shading power, the AI PRO 9600D is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses RDNA 4.0. The 840M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile family, and is built on the Krackan Point chip. The AI PRO 9600D belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, the Navi IV Series, and uses the Navi 48 chip. Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, so the transistor density difference is purely a matter of die scale. The AI PRO 9600D contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, giving a density of 151.0M transistors per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible from the database.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. The 840M uses system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. Its memory clock is also system shared. The AI PRO 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective, yielding 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental architectural difference: the integrated part borrows from main memory, while the discrete part has its own high-speed pool.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2900 MHz boost clock. The AI PRO 9600D has a 1080 MHz base clock, a 1080 MHz game clock, and a 2020 MHz boost clock. The 840M's higher boost clock does not compensate for its far smaller execution resource pool. The AI PRO 9600D's pixel rate is 193.9 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s on the 840M, and its texture rate is 387.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

Power delivery differs sharply. The 840M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP. The AI PRO 9600D is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm, uses a single 16-pin power connector, has a 150 W TDP, and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 840M, PCIe 5.0 x16 for the AI PRO 9600D. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the 840M, while the AI PRO 9600D has one DisplayPort 2.1a output. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. FP16 throughput matches FP32 at a 1:1 ratio on both parts, which is relevant for compute workloads that use reduced precision.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, so the comparison rests on the recorded specification data. The largest single gap is in FP32 compute. The AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS, which is 16.7 times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. In practical terms, a workload that takes one minute on the AI PRO 9600D would take roughly 17 minutes on the 840M, assuming perfect scaling. FP16 follows the same pattern: 24.82 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Memory bandwidth shows an even starker divergence because the 840M's bandwidth is system dependent and therefore not a fixed number. The AI PRO 9600D's 576.0 GB/s is a fixed, measured value. The 840M's system-shared memory cannot match dedicated GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, and the database lists no comparable figure for the integrated part.

Texture and pixel throughput reinforce the same conclusion. The AI PRO 9600D's 387.8 GTexel/s is 8.36 times the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. Its 193.9 GPixel/s is 8.36 times the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s. The ratio is identical because both parts have the same ratio of TMUs to ROPs relative to their shading units, but the absolute numbers show the discrete card performing at a different scale entirely.

Ray tracing resources follow the same trend. The AI PRO 9600D has 48 RT cores, twelve times the 840M's 4. The shading unit count is 3072 versus 256, also a 12x ratio. TMUs are 192 versus 16, a 12x ratio, and ROPs are 96 versus 8, again 12x. The consistent 12x ratio across execution units indicates that the AI PRO 9600D is not merely a higher-clocked version of the same design, but a fundamentally larger GPU with twelve times the parallel resources. The 840M's higher boost clock, 2900 MHz versus 2020 MHz, narrows the effective gap slightly but cannot overcome the resource deficit.

The 840M does hold one advantage in the recorded data: its boost clock is 43.6% higher than the AI PRO 9600D's boost clock. This matters for latency-sensitive, lightly threaded graphics workloads where a single unit's speed dominates. It does not matter for throughput-bound tasks, which is the majority of professional rendering and compute.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two GPUs are not competitors. The Radeon 840M is an integrated solution for portable systems, with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and system-shared memory. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D is a discrete professional card with 150 W TDP, a 16-pin connector, a 450 W suggested PSU, 32 GB GDDR6, and a 256-bit memory bus. Any user needing the AI PRO 9600D's compute level cannot use the 840M, and any system designed for the 840M cannot physically accommodate the AI PRO 9600D.

For portable, low-power, everyday use, the 840M is the appropriate choice. Its 4 nm process, 15 W TDP, and IGP form factor make it suitable for laptops where a discrete card would be impossible. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and system-shared memory are adequate for integrated graphics.

For professional rendering, AI workloads, and any memory-bandwidth-intensive task, the AI PRO 9600D is the only option with the required resources. Its 24.82 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, 48 RT cores, and 32 GB VRAM address workloads the 840M cannot handle. The 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS and 4 RT cores place it in a completely different performance tier. The 12x ratio in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and RT cores, combined with the 16.7x FP32 gap, makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous. The AI PRO 9600D also benefits from PCIe 5.0 x16, which provides more host bandwidth for data transfer than the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a 4 nm TSMC process. Both have 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios. These similarities do not bridge the performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 3072 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256. The AI PRO 9600D has twelve times the shading units of the 840M.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 840M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a 150 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and has a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What process node do these GPUs use?

A: Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 2900 MHz boost clock, which is higher than the Radeon AI PRO 9600D's 2020 MHz boost clock. The AI PRO 9600D has a 1080 MHz base clock and a 1080 MHz game clock.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Chip | Krackan Point | Navi 48 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) |

| Transistors | Unknown | 53,900 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 357 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Unknown | 151.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1080 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2020 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1080 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 576.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 256 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 16 | 192 |

| ROPs | 8 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 193.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 387.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 24.82 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 241 mm 9.5 inches length, 111 mm 4.4 inches height, 19 mm 0.7 inches width |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2025-12-10 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Radeon Pro Vega |