AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 has an average benchmark score of 2467, while the AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark score in the database (avgBenchmarkScore of 0). The RX 7400 also holds a 17th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the 840M's 50th percentile placement, though the 840M lacks any direct benchmark entries.

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7400 sits 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 8040S, 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, 1.8% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M. These deltas are narrow, placing the RX 7400 at the top of a tightly clustered group.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. The RX 7400 is built on the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish), whereas the 840M uses the Krackan Point chip.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 840M relies on System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Radeon RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Radeon RX 7400 has 1792 shading units and 28 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units and 4 ray tracing cores. The RX 7400 also has 112 texture mapping units and 64 ROPs versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the 840M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors. The Radeon RX 7400 is rated at 43 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD GPUs represent different branches of the RDNA family. The Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. It uses a 4 nm TSMC process node. The Radeon RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0, belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation, and is fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The RX 7400 has published transistor data: 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

The core configurations differ substantially. The RX 7400 contains 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The 840M contains 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. These ratios indicate the RX 7400 has 7 times the shading units, 7 times the TMUs, 8 times the ROPs, and 7 times the ray tracing cores compared to the 840M.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The 840M reaches a higher boost frequency, but the RX 7400 starts from a much higher base clock.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The 840M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the RX 7400 is a dual-slot discrete card with 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RX 7400's memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

The FP16 compute ratios differ: the 840M delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the RX 7400 delivers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The RX 7400's FP32 throughput is 16.49 TFLOPS and its FP16 throughput is 32.97 TFLOPS. The 840M's FP32 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS with matching FP16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The Radeon RX 7400 has its own recorded benchmark results across multiple tests, while the Radeon 840M has none.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7400 scores 1103. In PassMark tests, the RX 7400 records 59 in DirectX 10, 97 in DirectX 11, 44 in DirectX 12, 176 in DirectX 9, 1209 in G2D, 11897 in G3D, and 5152 in GPU Compute. The G3D score of 11897 stands as the largest single result, reflecting strong rasterization performance relative to its other metrics.

The RX 7400's average benchmark score is 2467, and its nearest rivals cluster within a narrow band. The AMD Radeon 8040S scores 2440 (1.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433 (1.4% behind), the Intel HD Graphics 610 scores 2425 (1.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M scores 2422 (1.9% behind). This puts the RX 7400 at the head of a group separated by less than 2% across all four rivals.

Because the 840M has no recorded benchmarks, direct numerical comparison between the two is not possible from the database. The 840M's percentile of 50 versus the RX 7400's percentile of 17 is the only relative positioning data available. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides in head-to-head testing, reflecting the absence of shared test data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field.

Process and chip: the 840M uses a 4 nm process with the Krackan Point chip, while the RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process with the Navi 33 chip (Hotpink Bonefish). The RX 7400's die is 204 mm² with 13,300 million transistors; the 840M's die size and transistor count are unknown.

Clocks: the 840M has a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The RX 7400 has a 1452 MHz base, 2200 MHz game clock, and 2300 MHz boost.

Memory: the 840M uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 7400 has 8 GB GDDR6, a 128-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 2250 MHz memory clock with 18 Gbps effective.

Compute units: the 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores.

Rates: the 840M's pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s. The RX 7400's pixel rate is 147.2 GPixel/s and texture rate is 257.6 GTexel/s.

FP32: the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS. FP16: the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 1:1; the RX 7400 delivers 32.97 TFLOPS at 2:1.

Power and physical: the 840M is 15 W, IGP slot width, no power connectors. The RX 7400 is 43 W, dual-slot, 1x 6-pin power connector, suggested PSU 200 W.

Outputs: the 840M's display outputs are portable-device dependent. The RX 7400 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Release dates: the 840M was released on 2025-02-28, and the RX 7400 was released on 2025-08-07.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 7400 wins on every measurable performance metric in the database. Its raw compute advantage is decisive: 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M, a gap of roughly 11 times. Its pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s confirm the same pattern. The RX 7400's 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is a discrete solution, whereas the 840M depends on shared system memory with no fixed bandwidth.

The RX 7400 also wins on benchmark presence. It has eight recorded test results across 3DMark and PassMark suites, plus an average score of 2467 and a clear position relative to four named rivals. The 840M has zero recorded benchmarks and cannot be ranked numerically.

The Radeon 840M wins on power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is less than half the RX 7400's 43 W. It requires no power connector, occupies no expansion slot (IGP form factor), and is designed for portable devices. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz is higher than the RX 7400's 2300 MHz boost, and its 4 nm process is smaller than the 6 nm process used by the RX 7400. The 840M also uses a newer architecture generation, RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0.

The 840M's percentile ranking of 50 versus the RX 7400's 17 is the one category where the 840M appears higher, but without benchmark scores backing that percentile, it does not translate into a demonstrated performance win.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is the performance part. It holds every recorded benchmark, delivers 7 times the shading units, 7 times the TMUs, 8 times the ROPs, and 7 times the RT cores of the 840M. Its FP32 throughput of 16.49 TFLOPS and memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s place it far ahead in compute and memory-bound workloads. Its average score of 2467 puts it 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 8040S, 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 710M, 1.8% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 610, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M. For workloads that require sustained GPU throughput, the RX 7400 is the only choice between these two.

The AMD Radeon 840M is the integrated option. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, IGP slot width, and portable-device-dependent outputs make it suitable for thin and light systems where discrete graphics cannot be installed. Its RDNA 3.5 architecture and 4 nm process are newer than the RX 7400's RDNA 3.0 and 6 nm process. Its 2900 MHz boost clock exceeds the RX 7400's 2300 MHz, but the 840M's much smaller core configuration (256 shading units versus 1792) means that higher clock does not translate into competitive throughput.

The RX 7400's release date of 2025-08-07 comes after the 840M's 2025-02-28 release. The RX 7400 has a successor listed as Navi IV, while the 840M has none. The RX 7400's predecessor is Navi II; the 840M's predecessor is Navi II IGP.

The verdict depends entirely on system context. Devices that need integrated graphics with minimal power draw align with the 840M. Systems that can accommodate a dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector and 200 W suggested PSU get the RX 7400's substantial performance advantage. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the 840M outperforms the RX 7400 in measured GPU workloads.