AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two AMD parts. The Radeon PRO W7600 holds a commanding lead across every measurable metric, while the Radeon 840M, as an integrated graphics processor, operates in a fundamentally different performance class.

The Radeon PRO W7600 delivers an average benchmark score of 87,108 across the recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon 840M, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This percentile disparity alone establishes the W7600 as a high-tier performer while the 840M occupies the middle of the distribution.

Looking at specific compute metrics, the W7600 produces 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 13.5 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.48 TFLOPS) of the 840M. The pixel throughput tells a similar story: the W7600 renders at 156.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M, a margin of approximately 6.7 times. Texture fill rates show the W7600 at 312.3 GTexel/s compared to 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M, a ratio of roughly 6.7 to 1.

The W7600's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 5.0% and the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4%, while sitting 0.4% behind the Quadro GP100. It leads the CMP 40HX by 1.7%. These margins confirm the W7600 competes in professional workstation territory, not integrated graphics territory.

The 840M has no nearest rivals recorded in the database, meaning no direct benchmark comparisons exist for it. The data available is purely architectural and theoretical.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations and are built on different process nodes. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm node, while the Radeon PRO W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm node. The 4 nm process gives the 840M a transistor density advantage per area, but the W7600 compensates with a much larger physical implementation.

The W7600's chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The 840M's Krackan Point chip lists transistor count and die size as unknown in the database, but its 4 nm process and integrated nature suggest a far smaller footprint.

Shading unit counts reveal the scale difference. The W7600 packs 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are exact ratios: the W7600 has 8 times the shaders, 8 times the TMUs, and 8 times the ROPs of the 840M.

Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern with 32 on the W7600 versus 4 on the 840M, again an 8-to-1 ratio. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed in the database.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The 840M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, typical of integrated graphics. The W7600 features 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth and an 18 Gbps effective data rate. The memory clock for the W7600 is listed at 2250 MHz.

Clock speeds show an interesting contrast. The 840M has a lower base clock of 400 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2900 MHz. The W7600 runs at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost. The 840M's boost clock exceeds the W7600's, but the massive core count difference makes this irrelevant for overall throughput.

FP16 performance differs in ratio as well. The W7600 delivers 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio to FP32. The 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration advantage over FP32.

Power consumption separates the two dramatically. The 840M carries a 15 W TDP with no power connectors, appropriate for an integrated part. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The W7600 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height, while the 840M is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility matches. The W7600 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the 840M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Radeon PRO W7600 is a professional workstation GPU designed for sustained, high-throughput compute workloads. Its 93rd percentile standing, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth position it for demanding professional applications. Its launch MSRP is 599 USD.

The Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics solution for mobile devices. Its 15 W TDP, system shared memory, and 50th percentile placement indicate it targets everyday graphics and light compute rather than professional workloads.

The 840M's absence of recorded benchmarks and nearest rivals means the database contains no direct performance evidence for it. Its theoretical specifications suggest capable integrated graphics, but nothing approaching the W7600's class.

For users needing professional-grade rendering, compute acceleration, or dedicated VRAM, the W7600 is the only choice supported by the data. For thin-and-light portable devices where power efficiency matters more than raw throughput, the 840M's 15 W envelope and integrated design serve a different purpose entirely.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 16 | 128 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 241 mm x 115 mm |

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

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

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Percentile | 50 | 93 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Radeon PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, approximately 13.5 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the Radeon 840M.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does the W7600 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7600 trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 5.0% and the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4%, sits 0.4% behind the Quadro GP100, and leads the CMP 40HX by 1.7%.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing, and how many RT cores does each have?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) which includes ray tracing. The W7600 has 32 RT cores, while the 840M has 4.

Q: What power delivery does each GPU require?

A: The 840M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The Radeon 840M released on 2025-02-28. The Radeon PRO W7600 released on 2023-08-02.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7600 wins in every scenario requiring dedicated graphics memory, sustained compute throughput, or professional workstation capability. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth handles large datasets without competing with system memory. The 2,048 shading units and 32 RT cores provide the muscle for 3D rendering, video encoding, and GPU-accelerated professional applications. The 93rd percentile ranking places it among the higher-performing GPUs in the database, with its nearest rivals being NVIDIA workstation parts.

The W7600 also wins on output flexibility with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections, supporting multi-monitor professional setups. Its single-slot form factor and 241 mm length fit standard workstation chassis. The 130 W TDP, while requiring a 6-pin connector, remains manageable for desktop workstations.

The Radeon 840M wins in scenarios where power efficiency and integration matter most. Its 15 W TDP allows deployment in thin-and-light portable devices without active cooling or dedicated power delivery. The 4 nm process node and RDNA 3.5 architecture represent AMD's latest integrated graphics technology. The lack of a power connector requirement and IGP form factor means no additional chassis space or cooling consideration.

The 840M's 2900 MHz boost clock exceeds the W7600's 2440 MHz boost, showing that per-clock efficiency favors the newer integrated part, but the core count disparity overwhelms this advantage. The 50th percentile placement indicates mid-pack performance across all GPUs, appropriate for general-purpose mobile graphics.

For FP16 workloads, the W7600's 2:1 ratio provides 39.98 TFLOPS versus the 840M's 1:1 ratio at 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The W7600's FP16 advantage matters for AI inference and certain compute tasks that leverage reduced precision.

In summary, the W7600 wins for professional workstations, compute-heavy tasks, and any workload needing dedicated VRAM. The 840M wins for portable devices prioritizing battery life and minimal thermal footprint over raw performance. The data provides no scenario where the 840M outperforms the W7600 in raw throughput; the only advantages are integration and efficiency.