AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300. Both products occupy a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The absence of comparative measurements means there are no exact percentage deltas, no victory margins, and no per-test breakdowns to walk through. What the database does provide are the raw architectural and performance specifications for each part, which allow for a side-by-side analysis of their respective capabilities based on peak theoretical throughput and memory subsystem characteristics.

The Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS. Converting the 840M figure to the same unit scale yields roughly 1.48 TFLOPS, meaning the MI300 offers approximately 32 times the FP32 throughput. In FP16, the gap widens substantially. The MI300 reaches 383.0 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, whereas the 840M manages 1,484.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. That places the MI300 ahead by a factor of roughly 258 in peak half-precision work, a reflection of the data center part's focus on matrix-heavy compute loads rather than graphics rendering.

Texture and pixel throughput follow a similar pattern. The 840M produces 46.40 GTexel/s and 23.20 GPixel/s. The MI300 produces 1,496.0 GTexel/s but reports 0 MPixel/s, which indicates the absence of conventional raster output units. The MI300 is not designed to drive displays or perform traditional pixel shading; its 880 texture mapping units and 14,080 shading units exist for compute-oriented workloads. The 840M, with 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, is a conventional integrated graphics processor intended for display output and gaming-class rendering.

Memory bandwidth separates the two more than any other single specification. The 840M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's DRAM configuration. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth. That is a fixed, dedicated memory pool with a bus width 16 times the PCIe lane count of the 840M's host interface. The 840M's shared memory approach is typical of integrated graphics, while the MI300's HBM3 stack is purpose-built for feeding 14,080 shaders and 880 TMUs without starvation.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, a wide dynamic range suited to power-constrained mobile use. The MI300 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, a narrower range reflecting its constant high-power operation in a server chassis. The 840M's boost clock is 1.7 times its base, while the MI300's boost is only 1.7 times its base as well, but the absolute frequencies are far apart due to their different thermal and power envelopes.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Radeon Instinct MI300 delivers 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The MI300 is roughly 32 times faster in single-precision throughput.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Radeon Instinct MI300 uses 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: The Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Instinct MI300 has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Radeon Instinct MI300 has a 600 W TDP, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and lists a 1000 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Radeon 840M is built on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the Radeon Instinct MI300 uses TSMC's 5 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has display outputs?

A: The Radeon 840M has portable device dependent display outputs. The Radeon Instinct MI300 has no outputs at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios that demand integrated graphics with low power draw and display connectivity. Its 15 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suited to thin-and-light laptops and portable devices where the system shares main memory for graphics duties. The 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost clocks allow it to idle at minimal power and ramp up when needed. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is adequate for an IGP that relies on system RAM. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it can handle modern gaming APIs and general desktop rendering. Its pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 46.40 GTexel/s are low in absolute terms but appropriate for its mobile segment.

The Radeon Instinct MI300 wins in compute-heavy data center workloads where rasterization is irrelevant. Its 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 128 GB of HBM3 with 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth target large-scale parallel processing. The 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 figures position it for AI training, scientific simulation, and high-performance computing tasks. The 8192-bit memory bus is an order of magnitude wider than anything an integrated part can use. The 1000 W suggested PSU and 600 W TDP indicate a server-class deployment with dedicated cooling and power delivery. The lack of display outputs and raster pixel rate confirms that the MI300 is not meant for graphics output.

The 840M wins on portability, power efficiency, and compatibility with consumer graphics APIs. The MI300 wins on raw throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. There is no overlap in their intended operating environments. The 840M's 1:1 FP16 ratio and 4 RT cores give it a functional role in gaming and light content creation, while the MI300's 8:1 FP16 ratio prioritizes tensor-style math over visual workloads.

Specification Differences

The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the MI300 uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture. The process nodes differ: 4 nm for the 840M, 5 nm for the MI300. Transistor counts also diverge sharply, with the 840M listed as unknown and the MI300 at 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The MI300 has a transistor density of 150.4M per mm², while the 840M has no recorded density figure.

Shader resources differ by a wide margin. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with no RT core count recorded. The pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M versus 0 MPixel/s for the MI300. Texture rates are 46.40 GTexel/s versus 1,496.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 47.87 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 1:1 versus 383.0 TFLOPS at 8:1.

Memory systems are fundamentally different. The 840M shares system memory with variable bandwidth. The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3, an 8192-bit bus, and 6.55 TB/s of fixed bandwidth. The 840M's memory clock is listed as system shared, while the MI300 runs at 1600 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed. Power delivery: the 840M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, while the MI300 has a 600 W TDP and two 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU for the MI300 is 1000 W; the 840M has no suggested PSU listed.

Interface and physical specs also differ. The 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The 840M is an IGP with portable device dependent display outputs; the MI300 has no display outputs and measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The 840M has a release date of 2025-02-28, while the MI300 launched on 2023-01-03. The 840M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the MI300's predecessor is FirePro Data Center.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5, a graphics-oriented architecture from the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile platforms. It includes 4 RT cores for ray tracing, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and runs on a 4 nm TSMC process. Its 256 shading units are organized for graphics and compute tasks in a power envelope of 15 W. The FP16 execution runs at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the hardware does not specialize in half-precision throughput.

The Radeon Instinct MI300 is built on CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused architecture from the Radeon Instinct MIx generation. It has no RT cores recorded and no display outputs. The 14,080 shading units and 880 TMUs feed a 128 GB HBM3 pool over an 8192-bit bus. The FP16 execution runs at an 8:1 ratio, indicating dedicated matrix math units that multiply half-precision throughput beyond the FP32 rate. The MI300 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, a massive design relative to the 840M's integrated solution.

The 840M's architecture prioritizes latency-sensitive graphics workloads, variable clock scaling, and compatibility with consumer APIs. The MI300's architecture prioritizes sustained throughput, massive memory bandwidth, and server reliability, evidenced by its 600 W TDP and dual 8-pin power requirement. The 840M uses system shared memory, so its bandwidth changes with the host platform. The MI300's HBM3 memory is fixed at 6.55 TB/s, independent of any host DRAM. The 840M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MI300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling the available host link width and generation for data transfer.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with no performance overlap. The Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor for mobile systems, with a 15 W TDP, shared system memory, and support for modern graphics APIs. It is the appropriate choice for a portable device that needs display output, light gaming, and DirectX 12 Ultimate compatibility. Its 4 nm process and 2900 MHz boost clock allow decent graphics performance within a tight power budget.

The Radeon Instinct MI300 is a data center accelerator with 600 W TDP, 128 GB of HBM3, and 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It is the appropriate choice for server workloads that require massive memory bandwidth and high throughput in FP16. Its lack of display outputs, zero pixel rate, and absence of consumer API support confirm that it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense.

Neither part can substitute for the other. The 840M cannot approach the MI300's compute density or memory bandwidth, and the MI300 cannot output to a display or run a desktop environment. The recorded percentile ranks are identical at 50, but that statistic reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than comparable performance. The correct selection depends entirely on the workload: a mobile device with integrated graphics needs the 840M, and a compute node with dedicated power and cooling needs the MI300.