AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Neither part has an average benchmark score listed, and the wins tally for each is zero. The data instead provides a specification-level comparison, where the two GPUs diverge sharply in execution resources, memory configuration, and physical design. The Radeon PRO W7400 carries 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 840M integrates 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. This 7:1 ratio in shading units and a 7:1 ratio in TMUs indicates a massive throughput advantage for the workstation part, though the absence of benchmark scores means no measured performance delta can be cited.

The Radeon PRO W7400’s rated pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s, versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M, a 3.03x advantage in fill rate. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 123.2 GTexel/s for the PRO W7400 against 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M, a 2.65x lead. Floating point output is listed at 7.885 TFLOPS for the PRO W7400 and 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.4848 TFLOPS) for the 840M, a 5.31x difference. These are theoretical peak figures, not application benchmarks, but they define the upper bound of what each GPU can deliver in compute-bound and fill-rate-bound workloads. The 840M’s boost clock of 2900 MHz far exceeds the PRO W7400’s 1100 MHz boost, yet the PRO W7400’s much larger execution resource pool overwhelms the clock advantage. The 840M’s higher clock partially compensates in latency-sensitive tasks, but the raw throughput gap remains decisive.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The Radeon 840M relies on System Shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as System Dependent. The PRO W7400’s memory bandwidth is fixed and isolated from system DRAM contention, whereas the 840M’s performance scales with the host platform’s memory speed and load. For workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, the PRO W7400’s dedicated 172.8 GB/s path is a structural advantage. The 840M’s memory clock is also listed as System Shared, meaning no discrete frequency is specified, while the PRO W7400 runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective data rate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256. This is a 7x difference in the core execution lane count.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses System Shared memory, where capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are System Dependent.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Radeon PRO W7400 boosts to 1100 MHz. The 840M’s boost clock is 2.64x higher than the PRO W7400’s.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, compared to 4 on the Radeon 840M. The PRO W7400’s ray tracing core count is 7x higher.

Q: What process node does each GPU use?

A: The Radeon 840M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. The 840M’s node is denser, but the PRO W7400 has a larger die at 204 mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. API compatibility is identical across the two parts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is based on the Krackan Point chip, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture, and is classified in the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. It is an integrated graphics processor with a 4 nm TSMC process node. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Its process node is 6 nm at TSMC. The 840M is a newer architecture revision (RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0), but the PRO W7400 compensates with a dedicated discrete design.

The PRO W7400 has a documented transistor count of 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 840M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct density comparison can be made. The PRO W7400’s physical dimensions are 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, fitting a single-slot form factor. The 840M is an IGP with no slot width, dimensions, or power connectors listed, as it is integrated into a portable device. The PRO W7400 requires a 250 W suggested PSU and has no dedicated power connectors, drawing up to 55 W TDP. The 840M has a 15 W TDP, reflecting its integrated mobile positioning.

The PRO W7400’s display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the 840M’s outputs are Portable Device Dependent, meaning they vary by the host laptop or handheld. The PRO W7400 is a discrete workstation card with fixed output options, while the 840M’s display connectivity is determined by the system integrator. The PRO W7400’s memory clock is explicitly 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), whereas the 840M’s memory clock is System Shared. Both share the PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, so interconnect bandwidth is identical.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification except API support and bus interface. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The 840M’s base clock is higher by 70 MHz, and its boost clock is higher by 1800 MHz. The PRO W7400’s memory is 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth; the 840M’s memory is System Shared with no fixed capacity, type, or bandwidth.

Shading units: 256 on the 840M versus 1,792 on the PRO W7400. TMUs: 16 versus 112. ROPs: 8 versus 64. RT cores: 4 versus 28. Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 15 W versus 55 W. Slot width: IGP versus Single-slot. Power connectors: None for both, but the PRO W7400 has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Dimensions: the 840M has none listed, while the PRO W7400 is 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm.

The PRO W7400’s process node is 6 nm versus the 840M’s 4 nm. The 840M’s architecture is RDNA 3.5, and the PRO W7400’s is RDNA 3.0. The 840M’s chip is Krackan Point, and the PRO W7400’s is Navi 33 with the Hotpink Bonefish codename. The 840M’s generation is Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile), while the PRO W7400’s is Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series). The PRO W7400 has a transistor count of 13,300 million, a die size of 204 mm², and a transistor density of 65.2M per mm²; the 840M lists all three as unknown. Release dates differ: the 840M was released on 2025-02-28, and the PRO W7400 on 2025-08-02. The 840M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the PRO W7400’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. Neither has a successor listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the dominant compute and fill-rate part, while the AMD Radeon 840M is a low-power integrated solution. The PRO W7400’s 7x shading unit count, 7x TMU count, 8x ROP count, and 7x RT core count give it overwhelming theoretical throughput. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 output is 5.31x the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Its 172.8 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth is a fixed resource, unlike the 840M’s System Dependent shared memory. The PRO W7400’s 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate are 3.03x and 2.65x the 840M’s figures, respectively.

The 840M counters with a 2900 MHz boost clock, 2.64x higher than the PRO W7400’s 1100 MHz. It also draws 15 W TDP versus 55 W, making it suitable for battery-powered portable devices. Its 4 nm process node is denser than the PRO W7400’s 6 nm node, and its RDNA 3.5 architecture is a newer revision. However, the 840M’s 256 shading units and 8 ROPs cap its absolute performance regardless of clock speed. The PRO W7400’s single-slot form factor, 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and 8 GB GDDR6 make it a discrete workstation card. The 840M’s IGP status and Portable Device Dependent outputs tie it to mobile platforms.

There is no benchmark score in the database for either GPU, so the verdict rests entirely on specification data. The PRO W7400 is the choice for workloads requiring sustained high throughput, large dedicated memory, and fixed bandwidth. The 840M is the choice for ultra-low-power integrated graphics where a discrete card is impossible. The 55 W TDP difference (15 W versus 55 W) and the 4x DisplayPort 2.1 output set on the PRO W7400 further distinguish their intended deployment. The 840M’s higher boost clock does not erase the resource gap, but it does indicate a different optimization target: high clock efficiency in a constrained power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 output, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate are multiples of the 840M’s corresponding values. It wins in memory capacity and bandwidth with 8 GB GDDR6 and 172.8 GB/s, versus System Shared memory on the 840M. It wins in ray tracing with 28 RT cores versus 4, and in render output with 64 ROPs versus 8. It also wins in display connectivity, offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1 fixed outputs, while the 840M’s outputs depend on the host device. It has a documented transistor count of 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die, confirming a large dedicated silicon area.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in clock speed. Its 2900 MHz boost is 2.64x the PRO W7400’s 1100 MHz. It wins in power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP against 55 W, a 3.67x reduction in power draw. It wins in process technology, using a 4 nm node versus 6 nm. It wins in architecture revision, with RDNA 3.5 over RDNA 3.0. It is a physically smaller solution, listed as an IGP with no slot width, whereas the PRO W7400 is a 168 mm single-slot card. The 840M’s System Shared memory means it can adapt to whatever RAM the host platform provides, whereas the PRO W7400 is fixed at 8 GB.

In mobile or embedded scenarios where power draw and physical space are constrained, the 840M’s 15 W TDP and IGP form factor are decisive. In desktop workstation scenarios where sustained throughput and dedicated VRAM matter, the PRO W7400’s 7.885 TFLOPS and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth dominate. The 840M’s higher base clock (400 MHz versus 330 MHz) also gives it a small idle-to-load transition advantage, but the PRO W7400’s larger execution resources make it the stronger choice for any compute-heavy task. Neither part has a benchmark score in the database, so all conclusions derive from the listed specification fields. The PRO W7400’s 28 RT cores versus 4 RT cores on the 840M suggests a clear lead in ray-traced rendering workloads, and its 8 GB dedicated memory supports larger scene data than the 840M’s shared pool. The 840M’s 4 nm node and RDNA 3.5 architecture indicate a more modern design, but the PRO W7400’s sheer scale wins on absolute capability.