AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 840M versus the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A. Neither part has an average benchmark score entry, and the wins count for each side is zero. This absence of comparative measurements is itself informative: the two accelerators occupy such different operating envelopes that no standardized test in the current dataset has placed them side by side.

What can be quantified is the theoretical rasterization throughput, where the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MI300A reaches 81.72 TFLOPS. That places the Instinct part at roughly 55 times the FP32 throughput of the integrated Radeon, a gap that reflects their entirely separate design targets. In texture operations, the MI300A processes 2,553.6 GTexel/s against the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s, a factor of approximately 55 again. Pixel throughput tells a different story: the 840M produces 23.20 GPixel/s, while the MI300A records 0 MPixel/s, as it has no raster output units and does not render to a display.

The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided. The MI300A lists 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio relative to FP32, whereas the 840M provides 1,484.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Instinct accelerator's FP16 capability exceeds the integrated GPU's by over 440 times, underscoring its orientation toward matrix-heavy workloads rather than general graphics. No benchmark scores exist to translate these theoretical peaks into application-level deltas, so any performance ranking must rely solely on these specification-level figures.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300A reaches 81.72 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The MI300A is approximately 55 times faster in FP32.

Q: Does the Radeon 840M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 840M includes 4 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The MI300A lists no ray tracing cores and has no DirectX support entries.

Q: What memory configuration does each device use?

A: The 840M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the MI300A boosts to 2100 MHz. The 840M also has a lower base clock at 400 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI300A.

Q: Are both devices produced by the same foundry?

A: Yes, both use TSMC fabrication, but on different nodes: the 840M uses a 4 nm process, while the MI300A uses a 5 nm process.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI300A contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The 840M's transistor count is listed as unknown.

Architecture Differences

The two devices come from different architectural families entirely. The Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5, a graphics-oriented design used in the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Its chip is codenamed Krackan Point, and it represents AMD's integrated graphics approach for portable devices. The Radeon Instinct MI300A uses CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused architecture from the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation, with the Aqua Vanjaram chip. This is a data center accelerator with no display output, no raster output units, and no graphics API support listed.

The process nodes differ: the 840M uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while the MI300A uses 5 nm. The transistor density reflects this: the MI300A packs 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter across its 1017 mm² die, for a total of 153 billion transistors. The 840M's die size and transistor count are unknown, but as an integrated GPU it shares a package with the CPU rather than existing as a discrete chip.

Memory architecture separates the two fundamentally. The 840M relies on system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, typical for an IGP. The MI300A carries 192 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory with a 10.3 TB/s bandwidth and a 8192-bit bus, a configuration designed for large-scale compute workloads that need rapid access to massive datasets. The 840M's memory clock is listed as system shared, while the MI300A operates at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, plus 4 ray tracing cores. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores. The lack of ROPs confirms the MI300A does no traditional pixel rendering, while the 840M is designed for exactly that task in a mobile context. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI300A lists no graphics API support whatsoever.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds: the 840M runs at a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost, while the MI300A runs at 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The integrated part has a higher peak clock, but the Instinct part starts from a much higher baseline.

Memory: the 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The MI300A has 192 GB of HBM3, an 8192-bit bus, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and a 2525 MHz memory clock at 10.1 Gbps effective.

Compute units: the 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The MI300A has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but 0 ROPs. Ray tracing cores exist only on the 840M (4 cores).

Throughput: the 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate. The MI300A delivers 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate. FP32 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M versus 81.72 TFLOPS for the MI300A. FP16 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1).

Power: the 840M is rated at 15 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP slot width. The MI300A draws 750 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and suggests a 1150 W power supply.

Interface: the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the MI300A uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: the 840M depends on the portable device, while the MI300A has no outputs.

Process: 4 nm for the 840M, 5 nm for the MI300A. Transistors: unknown for the 840M, 153,000 million for the MI300A. Die size: unknown versus 1017 mm².

Release dates: the 840M launched on 2025-02-28, while the MI300A launched on 2023-12-05. The 840M lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor; the MI300A lists FirePro Data Center. Both have no successor. Production status: the 840M is active, the MI300A's status is not listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices, with a 15 W TDP, system-shared memory, and full graphics API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. It is designed for rendering to a display, as evidenced by its 8 ROPs and 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300A is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, no graphics APIs, and a 750 W TDP. Its 192 GB HBM3 pool and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth point to large-scale compute workloads.

Neither part can substitute for the other. The 840M cannot approach the MI300A's 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 or 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, and it lacks the memory capacity and bandwidth for serious data center tasks. The MI300A cannot render graphics, output video, or run DirectX or Vulkan applications, and its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate makes it useless for traditional display workloads. The 840M's 4 nm process gives it a manufacturing advantage in density, but the MI300A's 5 nm process still enables 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter across a much larger die.

The percentile ranking for both is 50 against all GPUs, which places them at the median of the database, but that ranking says little given the absence of benchmark scores. The recorded data shows two devices with zero overlap in intended use, and the specification differences confirm that this is not a competitive comparison but a complementary one.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in any scenario requiring graphical output. It has a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s, which the MI300A cannot match at 0 MPixel/s. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300A has no API entries. The 840M's 4 ray tracing cores enable ray-traced effects, and its 400 MHz base clock scaling to 2900 MHz boost suits bursty mobile workloads. Its 15 W TDP means it fits in thin-and-light portable devices with no external power connectors. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the MI300A's PCIe 5.0 x16, is sufficient for an integrated GPU sharing system memory.

The MI300A wins in raw compute density. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 is over 55 times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 653.7 TFLOPS dwarfs the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS by more than 440 times. The 192 GB HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth supports datasets that would never fit in system-shared memory. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate provides massive throughput for texture-heavy compute kernels, even though there are no ROPs for display output. The 1000 MHz base clock ensures sustained performance under load, and the 750 W TDP, while enormous, is paired with a suggested 1150 W power supply, indicating a machine designed for continuous operation.

The 840M also wins on release timing, having launched on 2025-02-28, over a year after the MI300A's 2023-12-05 date. It uses a newer 4 nm process, which could imply better power efficiency per transistor, though the MI300A's 5 nm process still achieves 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The 840M is listed as active in production, whereas the MI300A's production status is not recorded.

For portability and display-centric use, the 840M is the only choice. For memory-bound and FP16-heavy compute, the MI300A is the only option. The database shows no overlap in capability, and the selection depends entirely on whether the workload ends in a frame buffer or a computation result.