AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of the AMD Radeon RX 6550M compared to the AMD Radeon 840M?

A: The Radeon RX 6550M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon 840M sits in the 50th percentile. This places the RX 6550M well above the midpoint of recorded graphics hardware, while the 840M lands exactly at the median.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the Radeon RX 6550M?

A: The RX 6550M has recorded scores of 42,536 in Geekbench OpenCL and 50,867 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across the database is 46,702.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for the Radeon 840M?

A: The database shows no benchmark entries for the Radeon 840M, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero. The RX 6550M, by contrast, has two Geekbench results on file.

Q: How does the Radeon RX 6550M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 6550M is essentially tied with the Intel Arc A530M, which has an average score of 46,614 and a delta of 0.2 percent, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 and 0.2 percent. It leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4 percent and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.6 percent.

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

A: The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The Radeon RX 6550M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock according to the database?

A: The Radeon 840M boosts to 2,900 MHz, while the Radeon RX 6550M boosts to 2,840 MHz. The 840M also has a much lower base clock at 400 MHz versus the RX 6550M's 2,000 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon RX 6550M are built on different generations of AMD graphics architecture. The 840M uses RDNA 3.5, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and is part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RX 6550M uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi Mobile RX 6000M generation. This architectural gap directly influences how each GPU is configured and what performance characteristics it can deliver.

The RX 6550M is a discrete-class part built on the Navi 24 chip, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die and a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, but its 4 nm process node suggests a denser manufacturing approach. The 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the RX 6550M is also classified as IGP in slot width but is a separate mobile GPU with its own memory subsystem.

Execution resources differ sharply. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. In every execution-resource category, the RX 6550M has exactly four times the count of the 840M. This symmetric relationship explains much of the raw throughput difference between the two.

The memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The 840M relies on system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent and no dedicated VRAM. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s. This gives the RX 6550M a predictable, dedicated memory pipeline that the 840M cannot match, since the integrated part must share system memory bandwidth with the CPU.

The RX 6550M supports a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 11.63 TFLOPS of half-precision compute, while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS in both FP16 and FP32 at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 6550M's FP32 throughput is 5.816 TFLOPS, roughly 3.9 times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature support is identical despite the architectural differences.

Power allocation diverges significantly. The 840M has a TDP of 15 W, while the RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W. The RX 6550M also has a higher base clock of 2,000 MHz and a game clock of 2,560 MHz, whereas the 840M's base clock is just 400 MHz. The 840M's boost clock of 2,900 MHz slightly edges out the RX 6550M's 2,840 MHz boost, but the integrated part operates under far tighter power constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon 840M versus the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. The wins counter shows zero for both GPUs. However, the recorded data for the RX 6550M and the 840M's lack of any benchmark entries still allows for a comparison based on available measurements.

The RX 6550M posts an average benchmark score of 46,702 across the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,867 show a strong Vulkan result relative to the OpenCL figure, a gap of roughly 19.6 percent between the two API tests. The 840M has no benchmark scores recorded, and its average score is zero, so there are no direct numbers to place against the RX 6550M's results.

The RX 6550M's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its measured performance. The Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614, just 0.2 percent behind the RX 6550M. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M averages 46,601, also 0.2 percent behind. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 trails by 1.4 percent with an average score of 46,043, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation trails by 1.6 percent with 45,972. These margins are small, indicating the RX 6550M sits at the top of a tightly clustered group of comparable mobile GPUs in the database.

The RX 6550M's 85th percentile ranking reflects this position. A GPU in the 85th percentile outperforms the majority of all GPUs tracked in the database. The 840M's 50th percentile ranking places it exactly in the middle of the distribution, though that ranking is based on the absence of recorded benchmark data rather than a measured score.

Given the lack of benchmark entries for the 840M, a direct numerical head-to-head cannot be constructed from the database. The available data shows the RX 6550M as a measured, benchmarked part with results in two API tests, while the 840M has no comparable measurements on file. Any performance comparison between the two must rely on their architectural specifications and resource counts rather than direct test results.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon RX 6550M differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The architecture is RDNA 3.5 for the 840M versus RDNA 2.0 for the RX 6550M. The process node is 4 nm for the 840M versus 6 nm for the RX 6550M, both fabricated at TSMC.

The RX 6550M has documented transistor data: 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown. The RX 6550M belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi Mobile RX 6000M generation, while the 840M is part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost frequencies. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2,000 MHz, a game clock of 2,560 MHz, and a boost clock of 2,840 MHz. The RX 6550M also has a memory clock of 2,250 MHz, described as 18 Gbps effective, while the 840M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory specifications are entirely different. The 840M uses system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6, a 64-bit bus, and 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources scale by a factor of four. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores.

Pixel and texture rates follow the resource counts. The 840M delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. The RX 6550M delivers 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s, which is approximately 3.9 times the pixel rate and 3.9 times the texture rate of the 840M.

FP32 performance is 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M versus 5.816 TFLOPS for the RX 6550M. FP16 performance is 1,484.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for the 840M versus 11.63 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for the RX 6550M. The RX 6550M's FP16 throughput is nearly eight times that of the 840M.

TDP ratings are 15 W for the 840M and 80 W for the RX 6550M. Both use PCIe 4.0, but the 840M has an x8 interface while the RX 6550M has an x4 interface. Neither GPU has power connectors, and both are listed with portable device dependent display outputs. The RX 6550M has a release date of January 2023, while the 840M has a release date of February 2025, making the 840M roughly two years newer.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to a clear separation between these two AMD GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is a measured, benchmarked part with an average score of 46,702, an 85th percentile ranking, and results in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. The AMD Radeon 840M has no benchmark entries and an average score of zero, placing it at the 50th percentile.

The RX 6550M's execution resources are four times those of the 840M in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores. Its FP32 throughput of 5.816 TFLOPS is nearly four times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 181.8 GTexel/s are roughly 3.9 times the 840M's figures. The RX 6550M also carries 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 with 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 840M depends on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The RX 6550M's 80 W TDP versus the 840M's 15 W TDP is the tradeoff. The 840M's 4 nm process and RDNA 3.5 architecture may offer efficiency advantages, but the database contains no power efficiency measurements or benchmark scores to confirm this. The 840M's higher boost clock of 2,900 MHz versus 2,840 MHz does not compensate for the RX 6550M's larger resource pool and dedicated memory.

The RX 6550M outperforms its nearest database rivals by small margins, from 0.2 percent over the Intel Arc A530M and AMD Radeon RX 5600M to 1.6 percent over the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation. This places it at the top of a tight performance cluster. The 840M has no comparable measured data.

Buyers selecting a GPU based on recorded benchmark results should favor the RX 6550M, which has demonstrated scores in the database. The 840M may serve configurations where the 15 W power envelope and integrated design are priorities, but the database does not provide performance measurements to support that choice. The RX 6550M is the only one of the two with actual benchmark evidence, and that evidence shows a GPU in the 85th percentile of all tracked hardware.