AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X, and neither part has an average benchmark score or rival comparison entries in the database. This absence of measured results is itself informative: the two products occupy entirely separate segments, and their performance profiles must be inferred from their architectural and specification data rather than from direct competitive testing.

The Radeon 840M delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the Instinct MI308X reaches 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32. Converting the latter to consistent units, 81.72 TFLOPS equals 81,720 GFLOPS, which places the Instinct MI308X roughly 55 times higher in raw single-precision compute. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens dramatically: the 840M sustains 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the MI308X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS with an 8:1 ratio. The Instinct part also holds a decisive advantage in texture throughput, with 2,553.6 GTexel/s against the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput, however, tells a different story: the 840M produces 23.20 GPixel/s, while the MI308X is listed at 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of traditional raster output units and its design focus on compute rather than graphics rendering.

The MI308X carries 19,456 shading units versus 256 on the 840M, and 1,216 texture mapping units versus 16. These figures confirm that the Instinct accelerator is built for massive parallel compute, while the 840M serves as an integrated graphics solution for mobile systems. The absence of benchmark scores in the database means no percentile ranking separates them; both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, a placeholder value pending actual measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X reaches 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32, compared to 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon 840M. The Instinct part delivers over 55 times the single-precision throughput based on the recorded specifications.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Instinct MI308X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database, consistent with its compute-focused design and lack of display outputs.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The Radeon Instinct MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors. The Radeon Instinct MI308X has a TDP of 750 W, uses an OAM module slot, and the database lists a suggested PSU of 1150 W.

Q: Which card is smaller or intended for different form factors?

A: The Radeon 840M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width listed as "IGP" and no power connectors. The Radeon Instinct MI308X is an OAM Module, a board form factor designed for dense accelerator deployments, and also lists no power connectors.

Q: When were these products released?

A: The Radeon 840M was released on 2025-02-28, and the Radeon Instinct MI308X was released on 2023-12-05, according to the database records.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families within AMD's lineup. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5, built on TSMC's 4 nm process, and is part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The Radeon Instinct MI308X uses CDNA 3.0, built on TSMC's 5 nm process, and belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation. These are not iterative steps of the same design; RDNA targets graphics and integrated mobile solutions, while CDNA targets data center compute acceleration.

The 840M integrates 4 ray tracing cores, reflecting its graphics-oriented role. The MI308X lists no ray tracing cores in the database, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, confirming it does not perform traditional graphics rasterization. The MI308X also has no display outputs, whereas the 840M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop or handheld implementation.

The Instinct MI308X uses a massive die: 1017 mm² with 153,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible from the recorded data. The MI308X's memory clock runs at 2525 MHz with 10.1 Gbps effective data rate, while the 840M's memory clock is tied to system shared memory.

The compute ratio for FP16 also differs. The 840M operates at a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning equal throughput for both precisions. The MI308X runs at an 8:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, indicating a much higher half-precision throughput designed for AI and machine learning workloads that tolerate reduced precision.

Specification Differences

The bus interfaces differ: the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MI308X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. This reflects the integrated nature of the 840M versus the standalone accelerator card nature of the MI308X. The MI308X's broader PCIe 5.0 x16 connection supports its high-bandwidth data transfer needs.

Clock speeds show a notable divergence. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. Despite the MI308X's lower boost clock, its vastly larger shader array produces far higher aggregate throughput.

The power envelope separates the two products sharply. The 840M consumes 15 W, fitting within mobile thermal budgets. The MI308X consumes 750 W, and the database recommends a 1150 W power supply for systems using it. Neither card lists power connectors, because the 840M draws power through its host platform and the MI308X receives power through its OAM module interface.

Shading units, texture mapping units, and raster output pipelines all differ: 256 versus 19,456 shading units, 16 versus 1,216 TMUs, and 8 versus 0 ROPs. The 840M has 8 ROPs for display output, while the MI308X has none. The 840M's texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s; the MI308X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s.

The MI308X has a defined transistor count of 153,000 million and a die size of 1017 mm². The 840M lists both as unknown. The MI308X's memory subsystem includes 192 GB of HBM3 on a 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth. The 840M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon Instinct MI308X are not competitors in any meaningful sense. The 840M is an integrated GPU for mobile devices, with a 15 W TDP, RDNA 3.5 architecture, and support for modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI308X is a data center accelerator with a 750 W TDP, CDNA 3.0 architecture, 192 GB of HBM3 memory, and no graphics API support or display outputs.

For any workload involving traditional graphics rendering, gaming, or display output, the 840M is the only viable option between the two, since the MI308X has no raster output units and no display connectivity. For high-throughput compute tasks such as large-scale FP16 or FP32 workloads, the MI308X's specifications dominate: 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, and 10.3 TB/s memory bandwidth versus the 840M's system-shared memory and 1,484.8 GFLOPS peak.

The MI308X also requires a 1150 W suggested power supply, which places it firmly outside any consumer or mobile context. The 840M's 15 W envelope makes it suitable for battery-powered devices. The release dates reinforce this split: the MI308X launched on 2023-12-05, while the 840M followed on 2025-02-28.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios requiring integrated graphics within a mobile platform. Its 15 W TDP means it can operate without additional power connectors, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface suits laptop and handheld designs. The 840M's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it broad compatibility with graphics software stacks. Its 4 ray tracing cores allow hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the MI308X does not list.

The Radeon Instinct MI308X wins in raw compute throughput. Its 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs deliver 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, dwarfing the 840M's 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. The MI308X's 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth provides a memory capacity and bandwidth profile suited to large model training and inference tasks, while the 840M's system-shared memory bandwidth is system dependent and far smaller. The MI308X's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface also provides a faster host connection than the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI308X's texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s indicates strong compute-side texture processing, but its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirms it cannot render frames. The 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate show it can handle display-oriented workloads. The MI308X's 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die represent a data center scale part, while the 840M's transistor count remains unknown, reflecting its position as a small integrated component.

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the workload. Mobile graphics and display tasks point to the 840M. Massive parallel compute, AI training, and high-bandwidth memory workloads point to the MI308X. The database records no benchmark scores for either part, so exact performance ratios beyond the stated specifications cannot be confirmed, but the architectural and specification data provides a clear directional picture.