AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in a completely different performance tier than the AMD Radeon 840M. The RX 7600 holds an average benchmark score of 15,171 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The 840M, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores, an average score of zero, and sits in the 50th percentile. This means the RX 7600 is not merely faster; it is the only one of the two with measurable performance data.

Looking at the RX 7600’s benchmark results, its strongest showing comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 88,051. Its Vulkan score of 34,401 is also substantial. In PassMark testing, the RX 7600 delivers a G3D score of 16,634 and a GPU compute score of 8,790. Its DirectX 9 score reaches 226, while DirectX 11 sits at 172, DirectX 10 at 84, and DirectX 12 at 58. The 2D graphics score is 984. The RX 7600 also records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,310.

For the 840M, no comparable numbers exist in the database. Its benchmark array is empty, so there is no direct head-to-head score to cite. Instead, the comparison relies on architectural specifications and recorded performance of the RX 7600 against its nearest rivals. The RX 7600 sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (which averages 15,063) and within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Pro 560X (15,082). It trails the AMD Radeon 680M by 0.7% (15,270) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM by 0.2% (15,199). These deltas show how tightly clustered the RX 7600 is among mid-range peers, but none of those rivals approach the 840M’s integrated-class positioning.

The absence of 840M benchmarks means the biggest win for the RX 7600 is simply having verifiable performance data. The 840M’s 50th percentile placement is a default ranking, not a measured result. In practical terms, the RX 7600’s 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate dwarf the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS and 23.20 GPixel/s, respectively. The RX 7600 also delivers 339.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M. These are theoretical peaks, but they align with the complete absence of any recorded 840M benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and architectural revisions. The 840M uses a 4 nm TSMC process with RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on the Krackan Point chip and categorized under the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The RX 7600 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish) under the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The RX 7600’s process node is larger, but it packs far more hardware.

The RX 7600 contains 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 listed as unknown in the database. The RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation pipelines, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. That is an 8x difference in shading units, an 8x difference in TMUs, an 8x difference in ROPs, and an 8x difference in RT cores.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2,900 MHz boost clock. The RX 7600 has a 1,720 MHz base clock, a 2,655 MHz boost clock, and a 2,250 MHz game clock. The 840M boosts higher, but its far smaller execution resource pool cannot compensate for the RX 7600’s massive lead in raw units.

Memory configuration separates the two sharply. The 840M uses system shared memory, with system-shared size, type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 840M’s memory bandwidth is not fixed; it depends entirely on the host system’s memory configuration. The RX 7600’s dedicated GDDR6 provides predictable, high-bandwidth access.

Power and physical design also differ. The 840M is an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width. The RX 7600 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 165 W TDP, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 450 W. The RX 7600 measures 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The 840M has no listed dimensions. The RX 7600 outputs video through 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the 840M’s display outputs are portable-device dependent. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7600 was released on May 24, 2023, with a launch MSRP of 269 USD. The 840M was released on February 28, 2025, with no launch MSRP. The RX 7600’s predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV. The 840M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, with no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 floating-point performance?

A: The RX 7600 delivers 21.75 TFLOPS FP32, while the 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP32. The RX 7600 is roughly 14.6 times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The 840M uses system shared memory with no fixed size, type, or bus width; its bandwidth is system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7600 has 32 ray tracing cores, while the 840M has 4. That is an 8x difference.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 840M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RX 7600 has a 165 W TDP, requires one 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU was released later?

A: The 840M was released on February 28, 2025. The RX 7600 was released on May 24, 2023.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node: 4 nm for the 840M, 6 nm for the RX 7600. The architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0. The chip: Krackan Point versus Navi 33. The generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Navi III (RX 7000). The RX 7600 has a known transistor count of 13,300 million and a die size of 204 mm²; the 840M’s are unknown.

Clock speeds differ: the 840M runs at 400 MHz base and 2,900 MHz boost, while the RX 7600 runs at 1,720 MHz base, 2,655 MHz boost, and 2,250 MHz game clock. Memory: the 840M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RX 7600 uses 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Execution units differ: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores for the 840M; 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores for the RX 7600. Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 339.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 21.75 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1:1 in both cases, at the same respective magnitudes.

TDP: 15 W versus 165 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus one 8-pin. Suggested PSU: none listed versus 450 W. Display outputs: portable-device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. Dimensions: none listed for the 840M, while the RX 7600 is 204 mm long and 115 mm high. Release date: February 28, 2025 versus May 24, 2023. The RX 7600 has a launch MSRP of 269 USD; the 840M has none. The bus interface is identical: PCIe 4.0 x8 for both.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins in every category where recorded data exists. Its benchmark scores, though clustered tightly among rivals like the RTX 3050 OEM and Radeon 680M, confirm real-world capability. The 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 339.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for demanding rasterization and compute workloads. Its 8 GB GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth supports higher-resolution textures and smoother frame pacing than any shared-memory solution. The 32 RT cores provide a path for ray-traced effects, though the database does not record ray tracing-specific benchmark results.

The 840M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP requires no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no discrete slot. It is an IGP, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and outputs video through the portable device’s own connections. The 4 nm process node is smaller than the RX 7600’s 6 nm node, which contributes to lower power draw. The 840M’s boost clock of 2,900 MHz is higher than the RX 7600’s 2,655 MHz boost, but that advantage is meaningless given the 8x deficit in every execution unit category.

For system builders, the RX 7600 is the only choice when dedicated graphics performance is required. For ultra-portable or low-power designs where integrated graphics are mandatory, the 840M is the only one of the two that fits. There is no overlap in their intended use cases.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card with 8 GB of GDDR6, 2,048 shading units, and a 165 W TDP. It records an average benchmark score of 15,171, places in the 57th percentile of all GPUs, and sits within 0.7% of several mid-range rivals. It has a launch MSRP of 269 USD and is positioned for mainstream desktop gaming and compute.

The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU with 256 shading units, a 15 W TDP, and no dedicated memory. It has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking is not backed by any measured performance. It is designed for mobile systems where power draw and physical space are constrained.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the RX 7600 is the higher-performance part by an overwhelming margin. The 840M is the lower-power, integrated alternative. No benchmark result exists for the 840M, so there is no evidence of any workload where it outperforms the RX 7600. The RX 7600’s 21.75 TFLOPS versus the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS, its 339.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, and its 288.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth versus system-shared memory all confirm the same conclusion. The choice depends entirely on whether the system requires a discrete card or an integrated solution.