AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon PRO V710 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon PRO V710. However, the available data for the Radeon PRO V710 provides a clear performance baseline, while the Radeon 840M has no benchmark entries in the database. The Radeon PRO V710 achieves an average benchmark score of 58,657 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs tracked. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 853, and in Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 116,460. These results confirm a substantial compute-capable part, one that sits comfortably ahead of most of the field.

The Radeon 840M, by contrast, shows a percentile rank of 50, indicating a mid-pack position among all GPUs, but without any benchmark scores recorded, the database cannot quantify its raw performance. The Radeon PRO V710’s nearest rivals in the database are instructive: the NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528 (0.2% behind the V710), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT averages 58,392 (0.5% behind), the Intel Arc A570M averages 58,239 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM averages 58,085 (1.0% behind). Thus, the V710 leads its closest competitor by only 0.2%, but the margin over the RX 5600 OEM is a full percentage point. The data shows a tightly clustered group at this performance tier, with the V710 holding the top spot among these four rivals.

Because no head-to-head results exist, the wins tally is zero for both parts. That does not mean the comparison is empty; instead, the specification gap between the two is so wide that the benchmark outcome is predictable from the architecture and resource allocation alone. The Radeon PRO V710’s 27.65 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the Radeon 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS is a difference of roughly 18.6 times, a figure derived directly from the recorded numbers. In pixel throughput, the V710 delivers 192.0 GPixel/s against the 840M’s 23.20 GPixel/s, an 8.3 times advantage. Texture rate shows 432.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a 9.3 times gap. These are not marginal differences; they place the two products in entirely separate performance classes.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two AMD parts is fundamental. The Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the Krackan Point chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The Radeon PRO V710 uses the older RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, with the Navi 32 chip and the codename Wheat Nas. It is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 5 nm, gives the 840M a density advantage in principle, but the V710 compensates with vastly more silicon.

The V710 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, with a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The 840M’s transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown, so no direct comparison is possible there. The V710’s sheer scale is evident in its execution resources: 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That means the V710 has 13.5 times the shading units, 13.5 times the TMUs, and 12 times the ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: the V710 has 54, the 840M has 4. Neither part has tensor cores recorded.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the V710 has a base of 1900 MHz and a boost of 2000 MHz. The 840M’s boost clock is 45% higher than the V710’s boost, which helps the smaller IGP close some of the gap in raw frequency, but not in throughput. Memory architecture is a complete divergence. The 840M uses system-shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus, delivering 504.0 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The V710’s memory bandwidth is a dedicated, fixed resource, whereas the 840M’s bandwidth varies with the host system’s memory configuration.

Power and physical design also separate the two. The 840M is rated at 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, and has no power connectors. The V710 is rated at 158 W TDP, is a single-slot card, and requires one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The bus interface differs: the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the V710 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are another stark contrast: the 840M is listed as portable device dependent, while the V710 has no outputs at all, indicating it is a compute-focused accelerator rather than a display adapter. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Radeon PRO V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The V710 is approximately 18.6 times faster in this metric.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Radeon PRO V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus with 504.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory, so its capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Radeon 840M and the Radeon PRO V710 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Radeon PRO V710 is rated at 158 W TDP. The V710 also requires a single 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, whereas the 840M uses no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon PRO V710 sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 840M sits in the 50th percentile. This reflects the V710’s much higher recorded benchmark performance.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO V710 have display outputs?

A: No, the Radeon PRO V710 has no display outputs. The Radeon 840M’s display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the host device.

The Verdict

The data separates these two GPUs into distinct roles. The Radeon PRO V710 is a dedicated, high-throughput compute accelerator. Its 27.65 TFLOPS FP32, 504.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 28 GB of GDDR6, and 54 ray tracing cores place it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 58,657, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 853 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460, confirms it as a top-tier performer, leading its nearest rival, the NVIDIA P102-100, by 0.2%. The V710 is also a professional Radeon Pro part, succeeding the Radeon Pro Vega, and it targets workloads where raw compute and memory capacity matter more than display output.

The Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU for mobile devices, built on the newer RDNA 3.5 architecture and 4 nm process. It has a 50th percentile ranking, a 15 W TDP, and no dedicated memory. Its 256 shading units and 4 ray tracing cores are a fraction of the V710’s resources. The 840M’s boost clock of 2900 MHz is higher than the V710’s 2000 MHz, but that does not compensate for the 13.5 times shading unit deficit. The 840M is suited for light, power-constrained use cases, while the V710 is built for sustained, heavy compute.

For any workload that demands high FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, or broad memory bandwidth, the Radeon PRO V710 is the clear choice. For a portable device where power draw is critical and performance expectations are modest, the Radeon 840M fits that niche. The database shows no benchmark overlap, but the specification gap is decisive. The V710 wins every measured resource comparison except clock speed, process node, and TDP efficiency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | AMD Radeon PRO V710 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Chip | Krackan Point | Navi 32 |

| Codename | None listed | Wheat Nas |

| Transistors | Unknown | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 28 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 224 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 504.0 GB/s |

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

| Shading Units | 256 | 3456 |

| TMUs | 16 | 216 |

| ROPs | 8 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 4 | 54 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 432.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 27.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 27.65 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 158 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2024-10-02 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Production Status | Active | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO V710 wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 27.65 TFLOPS versus the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS makes it suitable for heavy parallel workloads such as rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference, where FP32 and FP16 are used at a 1:1 ratio. Its 504.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 28 GB capacity allow it to hold large datasets in local VRAM, a critical advantage for workloads that exceed the 840M’s system-shared memory limits. The V710’s 54 ray tracing cores also give it a clear edge in ray-traced rendering, while the 840M’s 4 ray tracing cores are a minimal resource. The V710’s 96 ROPs and 216 TMUs deliver pixel and texture rates of 192.0 GPixel/s and 432.0 GTexel/s, respectively, which are 8.3 times and 9.3 times the 840M’s rates.

The Radeon 840M wins in power-constrained environments. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the V710’s 158 W, and it requires no power connectors or suggested PSU. It is an IGP, so it occupies no expansion slot and fits into portable devices where the V710’s single-slot, 8-pin-powered form factor is impossible. The 840M’s 2900 MHz boost clock is 45% higher than the V710’s 2000 MHz, which helps in lightly threaded tasks or memory-latency-sensitive operations where clock speed matters more than raw core count. Its newer RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process suggests better transistor-level efficiency, though the database records no efficiency metric. The 840M also provides display outputs, which are portable device dependent, whereas the V710 has none, making the 840M the only one of the two that can drive a screen.

The release timeline favors the 840M, which launched on 2025-02-28, versus the V710’s 2024-10-02. The 840M is also listed as active in production, while the V710’s production status is not recorded. For a user needing a discrete, high-memory compute accelerator with no display output, the V710 is the only option. For a user needing a low-power, integrated GPU with display capability, the 840M is the only option. The database shows no overlap in their intended roles, and the benchmark data, where it exists, reinforces the V710’s dominance in raw performance.