AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT occupy opposite ends of AMD’s graphics range, one as an integrated processor unit for thin mobile systems, the other as a dual-slot add-in board for desktop PCs. The database contains direct benchmark results only for the RX 7600 XT, so the comparison must rely on architectural and specification differences, along with the recorded performance of the discrete card. The 840M has no benchmark entries or rival data in the records, which limits quantitative matchups to the RX 7600 XT’s own scores and its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7600 XT delivers the only measured scores in this comparison. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 17,083, placing it at the 60th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The 840M carries a percentile of 50 with an average score of zero, indicating no recorded workload results. Because the integrated part has no test data, a direct per-test comparison cannot be constructed from the database. What can be analyzed is how the RX 7600 XT performs across the suite of tests and how its nearest rivals frame that performance.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7600 XT scores 2,348. This is a modern load with ray tracing and mesh shaders, and the score reflects the card’s RDNA 3.0 architecture with 32 ray accelerators. Geekbench OpenCL returns 92,426, the highest raw compute score in its recorded set. Geekbench Vulkan produces 48,366, roughly half the OpenCL figure, which is a common pattern for this API workload. PassMark G3D records 17,132, while PassMark G2D shows 1,030. Compute under PassMark reaches 8,987. Older DirectX paths show lower scores: DirectX 9 at 228, DirectX 11 at 167, DirectX 10 at 85, and DirectX 12 at 65. These legacy tests run at lower resolutions and often stress driver overhead rather than raw throughput.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for the RX 7600 XT’s standing. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 averages 17,208, which is 0.7% above the RX 7600 XT. The RX 7600 XT leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 by 0.3%, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M by 0.4%, and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 by 0.9%. All four rivals sit within a narrow band of roughly 1%, meaning the RX 7600 XT’s average score is essentially comparable to a range of older and newer cards. The RTX 3070 is the only one that edges ahead, and only by a small margin. This suggests the RX 7600 XT delivers performance close to a high-end Ampere card in the database’s aggregate metric, despite the architectural generation gap.

Since the 840M has no benchmark records, the head-to-head section must rest on the clear absence of data. The database shows the 840M at percentile 50, which is the median for all GPUs, but with no average score. The RX 7600 XT sits at percentile 60 with a substantial average. The percentile gap of 10 points indicates that while both parts fall in the middle range of all recorded GPUs, the discrete card ranks above the integrated unit in the database’s hierarchy. The 840M’s 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units are far below the RX 7600 XT’s 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The compute rates reinforce this: the RX 7600 XT reaches 22.57 TFLOPS FP32, while the 840M reaches 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is roughly 1.49 TFLOPS. That is a factor of about 15 in raw floating-point throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 XT wins in every category where the database records measurable output. It has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the 840M’s system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The 840M’s memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it relies on the host laptop’s RAM, which varies by platform. The RX 7600 XT’s fixed memory bandwidth is a clear advantage for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. Its pixel rate is 176.3 GPixel/s and texture rate is 352.6 GTexel/s, versus 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M. These rates translate directly to fill-rate-bound scenes: the discrete card can process roughly seven times the pixels and textures per second.

The RX 7600 XT also wins on ray tracing hardware. It includes 32 ray accelerators, while the 840M has 4. The database does not list a ray tracing benchmark for either card, but the hardware count alone indicates a large difference in ray traversal capability. The RX 7600 XT’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2,348, a DirectX 12 workload that includes ray tracing effects, serves as the only recorded proxy for this. The 840M has no such score.

The 840M wins on power and physical footprint. Its TDP is 15 W, versus 190 W for the RX 7600 XT. The integrated part requires no power connectors and takes no slot width, while the RX 7600 XT is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The 840M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, compared to the RX 7600 XT’s 6 nm process. Smaller process node typically allows higher efficiency per watt, and the 15 W TDP confirms this part targets low-power systems. The RX 7600 XT’s 204 mm length and 115 mm height make it a desktop-only component.

The 840M also wins on portability-dependent outputs. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the laptop manufacturer decides the ports. The RX 7600 XT has fixed outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. For a user with specific display needs, the discrete card’s fixed set is predictable, while the integrated part’s outputs vary by device.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the RX 7600 XT as the stronger performer by every measured metric. Its average benchmark score of 17,083 versus the 840M’s zero recorded average is the most direct evidence. The 840M’s 50th percentile places it at the median of the database, while the RX 7600 XT’s 60th percentile places it above the median. The compute rates, fill rates, memory bandwidth, and ray accelerator counts all favor the discrete card by large margins. Anyone choosing between these two based on the database should select the RX 7600 XT for any workload involving 3D rendering, modern game APIs, or compute tasks.

The 840M, however, is the only choice for systems that cannot accommodate a dual-slot card with a 450 W power supply. Its 15 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for thin and light laptops where the RX 7600 XT physically cannot fit. The 840M’s system-shared memory means it scales with the host system’s RAM, which can be an advantage in memory capacity if the laptop has ample RAM, though the bandwidth remains system dependent. For a user who needs a dedicated GPU with fixed memory and predictable performance, the RX 7600 XT is the data-backed pick.

The nearest rival data for the RX 7600 XT shows it is competitive with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, trailing by only 0.7%. That places it in a performance class well above the 840M, which has no rival data at all. The database does not record any benchmark for the 840M, so its real-world performance cannot be quantified here. The verdict is straightforward: the RX 7600 XT dominates in all recorded performance categories, while the 840M serves only the low-power integrated segment.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 840M have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The 840M has an empty benchmark array and an average benchmark score of zero. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50, but no individual test results are recorded.

Q: What is the RX 7600 XT’s best recorded benchmark score?

A: The highest score in its recorded set is Geekbench OpenCL at 92,426. The next highest is Geekbench Vulkan at 48,366, followed by PassMark G3D at 17,132.

Q: How does the RX 7600 XT compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 in the database?

A: The RTX 3070 has an average score of 17,208, which is 0.7% higher than the RX 7600 XT’s 17,083. The RX 7600 XT leads the GTX 690 by 0.3%, the HD 7970M by 0.4%, and the Tesla M4 by 0.9%.

Q: What memory specifications differ between the two cards?

A: The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective. The 840M uses system-shared memory with system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How many ray accelerators does each GPU have?

A: The RX 7600 XT has 32 ray accelerators. The 840M has 4 ray accelerators.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The RX 7600 XT has a TDP of 190 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W and one 8-pin power connector. The 840M has a TDP of 15 W, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of AMD’s RDNA architecture. The 840M is built on RDNA 3.5, the latest revision, while the RX 7600 XT uses RDNA 3.0. The 840M’s chip is named Krackan Point and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile line. The RX 7600 XT uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The 840M’s generation is labeled Navi III IGP, indicating an integrated part, while the RX 7600 XT is a discrete Navi III card.

Process node differs: the 840M uses TSMC’s 4 nm process, while the RX 7600 XT uses TSMC’s 6 nm process. The RX 7600 XT has recorded transistor data: 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The 840M has unknown transistor count and die size. The RX 7600 XT’s predecessor is listed as Navi II and its successor as Navi IV, while the 840M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP with no successor.

Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7600 XT has a game clock of 2470 MHz, a boost clock of 2755 MHz, and a base clock of 1980 MHz. The 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, with no game clock listed. The 840M’s boost clock is higher than the RX 7600 XT’s boost clock, but its shading unit count is far lower, so the integrated part’s higher frequency does not translate to higher throughput.

The RX 7600 XT has a pixel rate of 176.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 352.6 GTexel/s. The 840M has 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute for the RX 7600 XT is 22.57 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 22.57 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The 840M’s FP32 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS, with FP16 also at 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 1:1. Both cards support 1:1 FP16, meaning they do not double-rate half-precision operations.

Specification Differences

The RX 7600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray accelerators. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray accelerators. The RX 7600 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 7600 XT’s memory clock is 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective, while the 840M’s memory clock is system shared.

Clock speeds differ: the RX 7600 XT runs at 1980 MHz base, 2470 MHz game, and 2755 MHz boost. The 840M runs at 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. TDP is 190 W for the RX 7600 XT versus 15 W for the 840M. The RX 7600 XT is dual-slot with one 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W; the 840M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The RX 7600 XT has fixed display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the 840M has portable device dependent outputs. The RX 7600 XT measures 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height; the 840M has no recorded dimensions. The RX 7600 XT’s launch MSRP was 329 USD. The RX 7600 XT released on 2024-01-23, while the 840M released on 2025-02-28. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 as the bus interface. The RX 7600 XT has a production status of Active, as does the 840M.