AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 are both AMD graphics solutions, but they are engineered for entirely different environments. The 840M is a mobile integrated graphics processor (IGP) embedded within a system-on-chip design, while the PRO W7500 is a dedicated, single-slot workstation graphics card. The recorded data shows a clear division of labor: the 840M delivers efficient, low-power graphics for portable devices, whereas the PRO W7500 offers substantial compute and rendering throughput for professional workloads. This analysis separates their strengths based on the available benchmark data and hardware specifications without venturing into unverified territory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M holds its advantage in scenarios defined by minimal power consumption and system integration. Its thermal design power is 15 W, a figure that allows it to operate without any dedicated power connectors, drawing its energy from the host system. The 840M relies on system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all described as system dependent. This design makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact devices where discrete graphics would be impractical. The data does not include any benchmark scores for the 840M, so its wins are structural rather than performance-based: it wins on power efficiency and physical footprint, being an IGP with no slot width requirement.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 dominates in raw performance metrics. It posts a PassMark G3D score of 13,368 and a PassMark GPU Compute score of 5,910, alongside Geekbench scores of 58,213 for OpenCL and 68,634 for Vulkan. Its pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 190.4 GTexel/s, both far exceeding the 840M’s 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The PRO W7500 also provides 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, enabling it to handle large datasets and complex scenes without relying on system RAM. Its 70 W TDP is higher, but it remains a single-slot card that requires no external power connectors, only a 250 W suggested power supply. The PRO W7500 is the clear winner for any task that demands sustained graphical computation, such as 3D rendering, video processing, or GPU-accelerated compute.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in their underlying architecture. The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, employing the RDNA 3.5 architecture. It is categorized under the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, which reflects its integrated nature within a larger processor package. The PRO W7500, by contrast, uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, based on RDNA 3.0 and belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

Core counts differ substantially. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7500 scales this up to 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. This sevenfold increase in shading units and ROPs translates directly into higher fill rates and compute throughput. Clock speeds also differ: the 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the PRO W7500 operates at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on the 840M does not compensate for the massive core deficit. Memory architecture is another key difference: the 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the PRO W7500 has dedicated GDDR6 running at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit interface.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is equal. The PRO W7500 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the 840M’s display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they rely on the host laptop or tablet’s built-in panel and external ports. Process node differences, 4 nm versus 6 nm, give the 840M a manufacturing advantage, but the PRO W7500 compensates with a much larger chip and dedicated memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two products, so a side-by-side comparison relies on the PRO W7500’s recorded scores and the 840M’s absence of any benchmark data. The PRO W7500 achieves an average benchmark score of 16,415 and sits in the 59th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with an average score of 16,408 and a delta of 0%, meaning the PRO W7500 matches it almost exactly. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361, which is 0.3% lower, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351, 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504, putting it 0.5% higher than the PRO W7500. This places the PRO W7500 in a tight competitive cluster around the 16,400 score mark, showing it trades blows with these established cards.

The PRO W7500’s individual benchmark breakdown reveals strengths in specific workloads. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 68,634 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 58,213, suggesting that Vulkan-based applications extract more performance from the hardware. PassMark results show a G3D score of 13,368, a GPU compute score of 5,910, and a G2D score of 1,174. The DirectX 9 score of 200 is the highest among the DirectX tests, with DirectX 11 at 125, DirectX 10 at 65, and DirectX 12 at 46. This inverse relationship between newer API scores and older ones indicates the card is optimized for modern workloads, though legacy DirectX 9 performance remains respectable.

For the 840M, no benchmark scores exist in the database, meaning no quantitative comparison is possible. Its percentile rank is 50, which places it at the median of all GPUs, but without an average score, this percentile is based on incomplete data. The 840M’s FP32 performance is listed as 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the PRO W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS. Converting the latter to GFLOPS gives 12,190 GFLOPS, which is roughly 8.2 times higher. The PRO W7500’s FP16 performance is 24.37 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the 840M offers 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, so the PRO W7500 also leads in half-precision compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 boosts to 1700 MHz. The 840M’s clock is higher, but the PRO W7500 compensates with many more shading units.

Q: How much memory does the Radeon PRO W7500 have?

A: The PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 840M uses system shared memory, so its capacity and bandwidth are system dependent.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 840M has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors, while the PRO W7500 has a 70 W TDP, also with no power connectors, but requires a 250 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The 840M uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the PRO W7500 uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The 840M’s node is smaller, but the PRO W7500 has a larger die with 13,300 million transistors.

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The PRO W7500 scores 68,634 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 58,213. The 840M has no benchmark data, so no comparison is possible.

Specification Differences

The table below outlines the fields where the two GPUs diverge, based solely on recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 |

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

| Chip | Krackan Point | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | None | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | None | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 16 | 112 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 4 | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 190.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | None | 216 mm length, 115 mm height, 20 mm width |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-08-02 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | None | 429 USD |

The 840M has no transistor or die size data, and its memory subsystem is entirely dependent on the host system. The PRO W7500 is a fully specified discrete card with physical dimensions and a dedicated memory pool.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior GPU for intensive graphics and compute tasks, while the AMD Radeon 840M serves a different purpose as a low-power integrated solution. The PRO W7500’s 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 190.4 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS, 23.20 GPixel/s, and 46.40 GTexel/s. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth eliminates the bottleneck of system shared memory, which is critical for professional applications that load large textures or datasets. The PRO W7500 also holds a 59th percentile rank among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 16,415, placing it alongside the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell in performance.

The 840M, with its 15 W TDP and system shared memory, is designed for mobility and efficiency. Its 4 nm process node and 2900 MHz boost clock show advanced manufacturing, but the small core count of 256 shading units limits its output. It has no recorded benchmark scores, so its real-world performance cannot be quantified from the database. The 840M is appropriate for a portable device where battery life and thermals take priority over frame rates, and where the lack of a discrete GPU is acceptable. The PRO W7500, released earlier in 2023 with a launch MSRP of 429 USD, is the choice for a workstation requiring consistent, high-throughput rendering. Its single-slot form factor, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and 70 W power draw make it a practical addition to a professional build. The data does not support using the 840M for demanding workloads, nor does it support using the PRO W7500 in an ultraportable context where its size and power requirements would be prohibitive. Each product wins in its own domain, and the selection depends on whether the priority is portability or performance.