AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 represent two vastly different corners of the GPU spectrum, one an integrated processor for mobile devices and the other a professional workstation card. The database shows a decisive performance gap, but the architectural and specification differences are equally stark. This analysis compares the recorded data for both parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are one-sided because the Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the Radeon PRO W7800 has two strong entries. The Radeon PRO W7800 achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 154,366 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 175,422. Its average benchmark score across these tests is 164,894, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs tracked.

The Radeon 840M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, with a null benchmark list. The lack of recorded scores does not necessarily indicate failure, but it does mean the database contains no direct measurement for comparison. The nearest rivals for the Radeon PRO W7800 provide context for its placement. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 165,217, which is 0.2% higher than the W7800. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094, placing it 0.7% ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X leads the group with 168,574, which is 2.2% above the W7800.

The Radeon PRO W7800 does beat one listed rival, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, which scores 162,504, a 1.5% deficit compared to the W7800. These deltas are narrow, meaning the W7800 trades blows with top-tier workstation accelerators rather than dominating them. The absence of any head-to-head benchmark entries between the 840M and W7800 means the database does not provide a direct score comparison. Instead, the comparison rests on the W7800's measured results versus the 840M's lack of any recorded performance data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of the same underlying architecture but are built for entirely different purposes. The Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the chip codenamed Krackan Point. It belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, indicating its role as an integrated graphics processor. The Radeon PRO W7800 uses RDNA 3.0, a 5 nm process from TSMC, with the Navi 31 chip and the codename Plum Bonito. It is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The transistor counts highlight the scale difference. The W7800 packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of 109.1 million per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. The manufacturing process does favor the 840M, as 4 nm is smaller than 5 nm, but the W7800's massive chip provides far more compute resources.

The shading unit counts are dramatically different. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The W7800 also has 70 ray tracing cores compared to just 4 on the 840M. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed. The FP32 compute rates reflect this gap: the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS, roughly 30 times more raw single-precision throughput. The FP16 rates are 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for the 840M and 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) for the W7800.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the W7800 has a base clock of 1895 MHz and a boost clock of 2525 MHz. The 840M's boost clock is higher, but the W7800 sustains a much higher base clock, which is relevant for long-running professional workloads. The pixel rate for the 840M is 23.20 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s. The W7800 achieves 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s. The W7800's rasterization and texturing throughput is an order of magnitude higher.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each GPU?

The Radeon PRO W7800 sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 840M sits in the 50th percentile. This means the W7800 is ranked among the top performers, while the 840M is in the middle of the distribution.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

The Radeon PRO W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with the size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

The Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP. The Radeon PRO W7800 has a TDP of 260 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested power supply of 600 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

The Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is higher than the Radeon PRO W7800's boost clock of 2525 MHz. However, the W7800 has a much higher base clock at 1895 MHz compared to 400 MHz for the 840M.

Q: What is the release date for each product?

The Radeon 840M was released on February 28, 2025. The Radeon PRO W7800 was released earlier, on April 12, 2023.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W7800 support the same APIs as the Radeon 840M?

Yes, both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support is identical in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear hierarchy. The Radeon PRO W7800 is a professional workstation card with measured benchmark scores in the 97th percentile, delivering 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. It is designed for sustained, high-throughput workloads such as rendering, simulation, and AI inference, as evidenced by its 260 W TDP and dual-slot cooler with two 8-pin power connectors.

The Radeon 840M is an integrated processor with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and system shared memory. Its 256 shading units and 4 ray tracing cores are suited for light graphics tasks and basic multimedia on a portable device. Its higher boost clock of 2900 MHz does not compensate for the massive gap in shading units, texture units, and memory bandwidth.

Users who need professional-grade performance, large memory capacity, and the ability to handle complex compute workloads should select the Radeon PRO W7800. Its measured scores place it alongside the NVIDIA RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, with deltas under 1%. Users who need an efficient integrated GPU for a mobile device, with no additional power draw and minimal footprint, should select the Radeon 840M. The choice is not about which is better, but which fits the intended system.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 for the 840M, RDNA 3.0 for the W7800
• Process Node: 4 nm for the 840M, 5 nm for the W7800
• Transistors: Unknown for the 840M, 57,700 million for the W7800
• Die Size: Unknown for the 840M, 529 mm² for the W7800
• Base Clock: 400 MHz for the 840M, 1895 MHz for the W7800
• Boost Clock: 2900 MHz for the 840M, 2525 MHz for the W7800
• Memory Size: System Shared for the 840M, 32 GB for the W7800
• Memory Type: System Shared for the 840M, GDDR6 for the W7800
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared for the 840M, 256 bit for the W7800
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent for the 840M, 576.0 GB/s for the W7800
• Shading Units: 256 for the 840M, 4480 for the W7800
• TMUs: 16 for the 840M, 280 for the W7800
• ROPs: 8 for the 840M, 128 for the W7800
• RT Cores: 4 for the 840M, 70 for the W7800
• Pixel Rate: 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M, 323.2 GPixel/s for the W7800
• Texture Rate: 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M, 707.0 GTexel/s for the W7800
• FP32 Performance: 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M, 45.25 TFLOPS for the W7800
• FP16 Performance: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for the 840M, 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) for the W7800
• TDP: 15 W for the 840M, 260 W for the W7800
• Slot Width: IGP for the 840M, Dual-slot for the W7800
• Power Connectors: None for the 840M, 2x 8-pin for the W7800
• Suggested PSU: None for the 840M, 600 W for the W7800
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 840M, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7800
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent for the 840M, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7800
• Dimensions: Not listed for the 840M, 280 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width for the W7800
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 for the 840M, 2023-04-12 for the W7800
• Launch MSRP: None for the 840M, 2,499 USD for the W7800

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP means it draws minimal power, requires no external power connectors, and fits as an IGP with no slot width. Its 4 nm process node is smaller than the W7800's 5 nm node, and its boost clock of 2900 MHz exceeds the W7800's 2525 MHz. For a thin-and-light laptop or a low-power mini PC, the 840M provides integrated graphics without the need for a dedicated power supply or cooling solution. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is sufficient for system shared memory in such a device.

The Radeon PRO W7800 wins in every measure of raw performance. It has 17.5 times more shading units, 17.5 times more texture units, 16 times more ROPs, and 17.5 times more ray tracing cores. Its FP32 compute is 30 times higher, and its FP16 compute is 61 times higher. The 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a massive advantage over system shared memory, which is dependent on the host system's RAM speed. The W7800's pixel rate is 14 times higher and its texture rate is 15 times higher. Its base clock of 1895 MHz ensures sustained performance under load, unlike the 840M's 400 MHz base clock, which relies heavily on boosting to reach its rated speed. The W7800 also offers dedicated display outputs with DisplayPort 2.1, while the 840M's outputs depend entirely on the portable device. For professional workloads such as 3D rendering, video editing, scientific computation, or any task that demands large memory and high compute throughput, the W7800 is the clear choice from the data.