AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon RX 7600M occupy entirely different tiers of mobile graphics, and the recorded data confirms a decisive performance gap. The RX 7600M holds a single recorded benchmark entry in the database: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63,775. The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores, giving the RX 7600M a full sweep of the head-to-head comparison by default.

The RX 7600M’s score places it at the 89th percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database. Its nearest rivals illustrate the competitive bracket: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP scores 63,830, a delta of -0.1% relative to the RX 7600M, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX posts 63,842, also -0.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 trails slightly at 63,693, representing a +0.1% advantage for the RX 7600M. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 leads the group at 64,212, putting the RX 7600M -0.7% behind. The RX 7600M is therefore clustered tightly with these four rivals, all within a 1% band, confirming that its performance is consistent with a mid-range discrete mobile GPU rather than an outlier.

The 840M, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50. The data provides no direct numerical comparison between the two products. The absence of a recorded score for the 840M means the database cannot quantify the exact margin between them, but the structural differences in their hardware resources make the direction of the comparison unambiguous.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600M wins in every measurable category where the database contains data. Its Geekbench OpenCL result of 63,775 is the only concrete performance datapoint available, and it stands alone as the sole benchmark entry across both products. The 840M has zero recorded wins, and the RX 7600M has one.

The RX 7600M also wins on the basis of its hardware configuration. It draws from a Radeon RX 7000 series family design with 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 840M offers 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These counts represent a 7x advantage in shading units, a 7x advantage in TMUs, and an 8x advantage in ROPs for the RX 7600M. The RX 7600M also has 28 ray tracing cores compared to 4 on the 840M, a 7x disparity.

The 840M holds advantages in a few narrow areas. Its boost clock reaches 2,900 MHz, compared to 2,410 MHz for the RX 7600M, a 490 MHz higher peak. Its base clock of 400 MHz is far lower than the RX 7600M’s 1,500 MHz, but the boost ceiling favors the 840M. The 840M also runs on a 4 nm process node versus the 6 nm node used by the RX 7600M, giving it a manufacturing density advantage. Its thermal design power of 15 W is substantially lower than the RX 7600M’s 90 W, making it the more power-efficient option by specification. The 840M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the RX 7600M has dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built for different roles. The 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Krackan Point chip, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The RX 7600M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The 840M is an integrated graphics processor, while the RX 7600M is a discrete mobile GPU despite its IGP slot width classification.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The 840M is built on a 4 nm node at TSMC, while the RX 7600M uses a 6 nm node at the same foundry. The RX 7600M has a disclosed transistor count of 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 840M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, and its density is not recorded.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 840M relies on system-shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The RX 7600M has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, a 128-bit bus, and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 2,000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The RX 7600M also has a game clock of 2,070 MHz, a specification the 840M lacks entirely.

Compute capabilities reflect the hardware disparity. The RX 7600M delivers 17.27 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 34.55 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. The 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7600M’s pixel rate is 154.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M, and its texture rate is 269.9 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use PCIe 4.0, though the 840M uses an x8 interface while the RX 7600M uses x16. Neither has a power connector, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent. The 840M was released on 2025-02-28, while the RX 7600M was released on 2023-01-03. The 840M lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor, while the RX 7600M lists Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The RX 7600M has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 63,775. The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the RX 7600M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7600M is -0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830), -0.1% behind the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (63,842), +0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693), and -0.7% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX 7600M has 1,792 shading units, while the 840M has 256, a 7x difference.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 7600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The 840M has a boost clock of 2,900 MHz, compared to 2,410 MHz for the RX 7600M.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The 840M has a TDP of 15 W, while the RX 7600M has a TDP of 90 W. Neither uses a power connector.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The RX 7600M belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the 840M has no series designation. The 840M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the RX 7600M uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The 840M is in the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, while the RX 7600M is in the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation.

The process node differs: 4 nm for the 840M, 6 nm for the RX 7600M. The RX 7600M has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm²; the 840M’s transistor count, die size, and density are unknown. Base clocks are 400 MHz for the 840M and 1,500 MHz for the RX 7600M. Boost clocks are 2,900 MHz and 2,410 MHz respectively. The RX 7600M has a game clock of 2,070 MHz; the 840M has none. Memory clocks are listed as system shared for the 840M and 2,000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the RX 7600M.

Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: system shared versus 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 256.0 GB/s. Shading units are 256 versus 1,792. TMUs are 16 versus 112. ROPs are 8 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 4 versus 28. Pixel rates are 23.20 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 46.40 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 17.27 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 1:1 versus 34.55 TFLOPS at 2:1. TDP is 15 W versus 90 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 840M and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7600M. Release dates are 2025-02-28 and 2023-01-03 respectively. The predecessors are Navi II IGP and Polaris Mobile. The RX 7600M has a recorded average benchmark score of 63,775 and a 89th percentile ranking, while the 840M has an average score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking.