AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and AMD Radeon RX 7700 occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, one designed as an integrated processor for portable devices and the other as a full-size discrete add-in board. The recorded data shows a massive performance gulf, but the comparison is not without nuance. The 840M is a 15 W integrated graphics solution built on the Krackan Point chip, while the RX 7700 is a 200 W dual-slot discrete card using the Navi 32 GPU with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The benchmark database places the RX 7700 at the 58th percentile among all GPUs, while the 840M sits at the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins exclusively in the domain of power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP allows it to function without any power connectors, drawing all power from the host system, and it uses system shared memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This makes it the only viable option in portable devices where physical space and thermal limits preclude a discrete card. The 840M is an IGP with a bus interface of PCIe 4.0 x8, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the host laptop or handheld dictates connectivity. For users who require a graphics solution that fits into a slim chassis with no external power, the 840M is the clear winner by default.

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins in every measurable performance category. Its PassMark G3D score of 20,974 dwarfs what the integrated part can deliver, and its average benchmark score of 15,852 places it in the upper half of all GPUs. The RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s. It also brings 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the 840M's system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The discrete card wins in raw rasterization, compute workloads, and memory-intensive tasks. The data indicates the RX 7700 is also the only one of the pair with a recorded benchmark suite, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,865 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 106,028.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the AMD Radeon 840M and the AMD Radeon RX 7700?

A: The RX 7700 produces 25.18 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is roughly 17 times higher. The RX 7700 also delivers a pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s, compared to 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s for the 840M.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The RX 7700 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 840M uses system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as system shared and system dependent respectively.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 7700 has a 200 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The 840M has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors, relying entirely on the host system.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX 7700 has 2,560 shading units, while the 840M has 256. The RX 7700 also has 160 texture mapping units and 96 ROPs, versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the 840M.

Q: What is the difference in ray tracing hardware?

A: The RX 7700 has 40 ray tracing cores, while the 840M has 4. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do their physical sizes differ?

A: The RX 7700 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 135 mm in height, and 50 mm in width. The 840M is an integrated graphics processor with no dimensions recorded, as it is built into the host device.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the two GPUs, and the 840M has no recorded benchmark scores at all. The RX 7700, however, has a full suite of measurements. Its PassMark G3D score of 20,974 indicates strong general 3D rendering performance, and its PassMark GPU Compute score of 10,963 shows substantial compute capability. The RX 7700's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2,865 provides a modern DirectX 12 workload score, while its Geekbench OpenCL score of 106,028 demonstrates significant parallel processing throughput.

The RX 7700's average benchmark score of 15,852 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R9 370X at 15,862, effectively a statistical tie. It sits 1% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 at 16,014, 1.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15,679, and 1.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti at 16,129. These narrow deltas indicate the RX 7700 occupies a crowded performance band where the leading rivals are separated by less than two percent. The 840M, by contrast, has no benchmark data and no rival comparisons, so its relative standing cannot be quantified in the database.

Looking at the raw specifications, the RX 7700's FP32 throughput of 25.18 TFLOPS is approximately 16.9 times that of the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The pixel rate advantage is 236.1 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, a 10.2 times difference. The texture rate comparison shows 393.4 GTexel/s against 46.40 GTexel/s, an 8.5 times advantage. Memory bandwidth is perhaps the most stark gap: 624.1 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth versus system dependent shared memory, which in most portable configurations will be limited by the host memory controller and shared with the CPU.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The 840M uses a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a game clock of 2041 MHz, and a boost clock of 2459 MHz. The RX 7700's memory runs at 2438 MHz with 19.5 Gbps effective, while the 840M's memory is system shared with no fixed clock.

The shading unit count is 256 for the 840M versus 2,560 for the RX 7700. Texture mapping units number 16 versus 160, and ROPs are 8 versus 96. Ray tracing cores are 4 for the integrated part and 40 for the discrete card. The RX 7700 has 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die with a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm², while the 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown. The RX 7700 uses a 5 nm process node at TSMC, while the 840M uses a 4 nm node, also at TSMC.

Power delivery differs substantially: the 840M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors, while the RX 7700 has a 200 W TDP, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 840M and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 7700. The slot width is IGP for the integrated part and dual-slot for the discrete card. Display outputs are portable device dependent on the 840M, while the RX 7700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C. The RX 7700 has physical dimensions of 267 mm length, 135 mm height, and 50 mm width; the 840M has no recorded dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Krackan Point chip, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RX 7700 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 32 chip, with the codename Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. Both are built by TSMC, but the 840M uses a 4 nm process while the RX 7700 uses 5 nm. The 840M supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 1,484.8 GFLOPS, and the RX 7700 also runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, both at 25.18 TFLOPS. Neither card has tensor cores recorded.

The 840M is listed as the successor to Navi II IGP, while the RX 7700's predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV. The RX 7700 launched on 2025-09-17, while the 840M launched earlier on 2025-02-28. Both are currently marked as active production. The RX 7700 supports 12 Ultimate (12_2) DirectX, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and the 840M supports the identical API set. The RX 7700's memory system is a 16 GB GDDR6 configuration with a 256-bit bus, while the 840M relies entirely on system shared memory, meaning its effective bandwidth is dictated by the host platform rather than the GPU itself.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous. The RX 7700 delivers roughly 17 times the FP32 compute of the 840M, 10 times the pixel throughput, and 8.5 times the texture rate, all backed by 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 15,852 places it in the top half of all GPUs, slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti and AMD Radeon RX 9060, but ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500. Users who need discrete graphics performance, whether for gaming, rendering, or compute workloads, should select the RX 7700 based on the recorded measurements.

The 840M, however, serves a fundamentally different purpose. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and system shared memory make it suitable only for portable devices where a discrete card cannot physically or thermally fit. The data shows no benchmark scores for the 840M, so its performance level cannot be quantified relative to the RX 7700, but the specification gap is so large that no integrated part could reasonably compete with a 200 W discrete card. The RX 7700 is a dual-slot card requiring a 550 W PSU, two 8-pin connectors, and 267 mm of length, which rules it out for any compact or mobile form factor. The 840M is the only choice for those constrained systems, while the RX 7700 is the only choice for anyone prioritizing raw graphics throughput.