AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 840M versus the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X. Both entries in the database carry an average benchmark score of 0, and neither lists any nearest rivals or percentile comparisons beyond a shared 50th percentile versus all GPUs. This absence of measured scores means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences documented in the database.

The Radeon 840M, as an integrated graphics processor, delivers its compute through 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. Its peak FP32 throughput is recorded at 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The Instinct MI300X, by contrast, deploys 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with an FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS. That represents a 55-fold advantage in raw single-precision compute, calculated directly from the two recorded values.

In FP16 performance, the gap widens further. The 840M lists 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision and single-precision at the same rate. The MI300X lists 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio, so its half-precision throughput vastly exceeds its FP32 output. The delta between the two FP16 figures is enormous, roughly 440 times higher for the Instinct part when comparing the raw numbers.

Texture fill rate tells a similar story. The 840M manages 46.40 GTexel/s, while the MI300X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is a different matter entirely: the 840M records 23.20 GPixel/s, whereas the MI300X shows 0 MPixel/s, because it has no raster output units and no display outputs. The Instinct card is not designed to draw frames to a screen; it is a compute accelerator with no graphics pipeline output.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The 840M runs a base of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. The MI300X starts at 1000 MHz and boosts to 2100 MHz. Despite the lower absolute clocks on the Instinct part, its massive shader count overwhelms the frequency disadvantage. The 840M's boost clock is 38% higher than the MI300X's boost, but that advantage is meaningless against a 76-fold increase in shading units.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz. The 840M's boost clock is 800 MHz higher.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The Instinct MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Instinct MI300X has a 750 W TDP, no power connectors (it uses an OAM Module slot), and the database lists a suggested PSU of 1150 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX?

A: No. The Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI300X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database; it has no display outputs.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The Radeon 840M's transistor count is listed as unknown. The Instinct MI300X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, with a transistor density of 150.4M per mm².

Q: Which GPU was released more recently?

A: The Radeon 840M was released on 2025-02-28. The Instinct MI300X was released on 2023-12-05. The 840M is the newer product by roughly 15 months.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios that demand a compact, low-power integrated solution. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices, where the IGP slot width and absence of power connectors simplify system design. The 840M's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it can drive internal panels and external monitors as the host device allows. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is modest but adequate for an integrated part. For basic graphics acceleration, media playback, and light gaming at modest resolutions, the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate provide a functional baseline. The 840M also offers modern API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling compatibility with current graphics software.

The Instinct MI300X wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is built for large data sets that would never fit in shared system memory. The 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 throughput target machine learning training, scientific simulation, and data center inference tasks. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate, while nominally a graphics metric, reflects the raw processing muscle available for general-purpose compute. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bus bandwidth compared to the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters when streaming data to the accelerator. The MI300X's 5 nm process node and massive 1017 mm² die, with 153,000 million transistors, indicate a chip engineered for maximum throughput rather than efficiency or portability.

The database shows zero wins for either GPU in head-to-head benchmarks, so the assignment of strengths must follow the specification records. The 840M's 2900 MHz boost clock is the highest frequency in this comparison, but the MI300X's sheer scale of execution resources makes it the clear leader in any parallel compute task.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip on an RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Instinct MI300X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip on a CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The process nodes differ by one nanometer step, with the 840M on the smaller node.

Transistor data is asymmetric: the 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown, while the MI300X records 153,000 million transistors, a 1017 mm² die, and a density of 150.4M per mm². Clock speeds differ as noted: the 840M runs 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost; the MI300X runs 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. Memory configurations are entirely different, with the 840M relying on system shared memory and the MI300X carrying 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts diverge sharply: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the 840M versus 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs for the MI300X. The 840M has 4 ray tracing cores; the MI300X lists none. Pixel rate favors the 840M at 23.20 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate favors the MI300X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 figures both favor the MI300X by factors of 55 and 440 respectively.

Power and physical specs differ completely: the 840M is a 15 W IGP with no power connectors, while the MI300X is a 750 W OAM Module with a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has portable device dependent display outputs. The MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. API support exists only on the 840M, with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the MI300X lists none. Release dates are 2025-02-28 for the 840M and 2023-12-05 for the MI300X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Radeon 840M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically Strix Point Mobile, and uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture. RDNA is AMD's graphics-oriented architecture family, designed for rendering, display output, and consumer workloads. The presence of 4 ray tracing cores and a 12 Ultimate DirectX feature level confirms a graphics-first design. The 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio indicates that the 840M does not specialize in half-precision compute; it treats both precisions equally, which is typical for graphics workloads that need consistent throughput across different shader operations.

The Instinct MI300X belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation and uses CDNA 3.0. CDNA is AMD's compute-optimized architecture, stripped of graphics features. The 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate make this explicit: there is no rasterization hardware at all. The 8:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio shows aggressive half-precision acceleration, a design choice for AI and machine learning where FP16 is often sufficient for inference and training. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed, no display outputs, and no consumer API support, all consistent with a datacenter accelerator that communicates with hosts via PCIe and runs compute kernels rather than rendering scenes.

The cache hierarchy is not documented in either entry, but the memory architecture tells the story. The 840M's system shared memory means the CPU and GPU share the same memory pool, with bandwidth dependent on the host system's DRAM configuration. The MI300X's dedicated 192 GB HBM3 stack with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth is a private, high-speed memory pool that does not contend with CPU traffic. The 8192-bit bus width, the widest in the database, is what enables that bandwidth figure.

The transistor budgets reflect the different design goals. The MI300X's 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die is an enormous chip, built for maximum parallel throughput. The 840M's unknown transistor count and small IGP form factor indicate a chip designed for integration into a mobile processor, where die area and power are constrained. The 4 nm process on the 840M versus 5 nm on the MI300X suggests the newer product uses a slightly more advanced manufacturing node, but the Instinct part compensates with sheer scale.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload. The AMD Radeon 840M is the appropriate choice for a portable device requiring integrated graphics, modern API support, and minimal power draw. Its 15 W TDP, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and system shared memory make it a component of a larger mobile platform, not a standalone accelerator. The 2900 MHz boost clock and 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate it can handle conventional display output and light rendering tasks.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X is the appropriate choice for datacenter compute, machine learning, and scientific workloads. Its 192 GB HBM3 memory, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput provide the resources needed for large-scale parallel processing. The 750 W TDP and OAM Module form factor require a server chassis with appropriate power delivery, as indicated by the 1150 W suggested PSU. The absence of display outputs and consumer APIs means it is not a graphics card in the traditional sense.

The 840M's 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs is identical to the MI300X's 50th percentile, but that metric reflects the lack of benchmark data rather than comparable performance. The specification differences are so vast that no reasonable workload would treat these as alternatives. The 840M serves the client side: desktops, laptops, and all-in-one systems. The MI300X serves the server side: AI training clusters, high-performance computing facilities, and data centers. A builder selecting a GPU for a gaming laptop would choose the 840M. A system integrator deploying an inference server would choose the MI300X. The database records no overlap in their intended use cases, and the numbers confirm why.