AMD Radeon 840M vs AMD Radeon RX 9050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 840M versus the AMD Radeon RX 9050. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and the win counts stand at 0 for each side. This absence of measured data means the comparison must rely on architectural specifications and calculated throughput figures rather than empirical test outcomes.

The Radeon 840M delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the Radeon RX 9050 reaches 10.65 TFLOPS. Converting the RX 9050's figure to the same unit yields 10,650 GFLOPS, which places it roughly 7.2 times higher than the 840M in raw shader math. Pixel throughput tells a similar story: the RX 9050 outputs 166.4 GPixel/s versus the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s, a margin of about 7.2x. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the RX 9050 at 166.4 GTexel/s and the 840M at 46.40 GTexel/s, a 3.6x difference.

Because the head-to-head array is empty, there are no individual workload victories to itemize. The recorded data cannot confirm which part wins in any specific game or synthetic test. What the specifications indicate is a substantial performance gulf in theoretical throughput, but the absence of measured benchmarks leaves actual application behavior unquantified in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different generations of AMD's graphics architecture. The Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5 and is built on the Krackan Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The Radeon RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 and is built on the Navi 44 chip, part of the Navi IV (RX 9000) series. Both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical.

The RX 9050 carries 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density comparison can be made. The RX 9050's discrete design contrasts with the 840M's integrated graphics processor (IGP) configuration, which uses system-shared memory.

Shader resources differ sharply. The RX 9050 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the RX 9050 includes 16 RT cores, while the 840M has 4. Neither part lists tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RX 9050 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s. The 840M's memory clock is not fixed, as it depends on the host system, whereas the RX 9050 runs its memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has a 400 MHz base clock and 2900 MHz boost clock. The RX 9050 has a 1330 MHz base, 1920 MHz game clock, and 2600 MHz boost. The 840M's higher boost clock does not compensate for its far smaller shader array. The RX 9050's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at a 1:1 ratio, and the 840M also shows a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio at 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M, as an IGP with a 15 W TDP, is positioned for portable devices. Its system-shared memory and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface indicate it is designed to operate within a laptop or compact platform where dedicated graphics is not an option. Its lower power envelope and integrated nature make it suitable for lightweight workloads that do not demand high sustained throughput.

The Radeon RX 9050 is a discrete dual-slot card with a 92 W TDP and a single 8-pin power connector. The database lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which provides substantially more bandwidth for data transfer between the CPU and GPU compared to the 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8 link. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is dedicated and does not contend with system memory.

The specification data indicates that the RX 9050 wins decisively in every measured throughput category: FP32, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The 840M wins on boost clock (2900 MHz versus 2600 MHz) and TDP (15 W versus 92 W), but those are not performance metrics in benchmark terms. The 840M also has a more recent release date, listed as 2025-02-28, while the RX 9050 is dated 2026-07-27, meaning the RX 9050 is actually the later product.

For workloads that rely on ray tracing, the RX 9050's 16 RT cores versus 4 on the 840M suggests a clear advantage in ray-traced scenes, though no benchmark scores confirm this. For tasks that depend on memory bandwidth, such as high-resolution texturing or large dataset processing, the RX 9050's 288.0 GB/s versus system-dependent bandwidth on the 840M is a major separation.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no overlapping benchmark results, so the verdict must be drawn from architecture and calculated rates. The Radeon RX 9050 is the stronger part by every raw throughput metric recorded. It delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, 166.4 GPixel/s, 166.4 GTexel/s, 8 GB GDDR6, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 16 RT cores. The Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP32, 23.20 GPixel/s, 46.40 GTexel/s, system-shared memory, and 4 RT cores.

The RX 9050 is roughly 7.2x higher in FP32 and pixel rate, and 3.6x higher in texture rate. Its transistor count of 29,700 million and die size of 199 mm² indicate a much larger and more complex chip than the 840M, whose transistor count and die size are unknown. The RX 9050's 92 W TDP and dual-slot cooler profile confirm it is designed for desktop or high-performance laptop docking scenarios where power delivery and cooling are not constrained.

The 840M's 15 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is intended for thin-and-light systems where a discrete GPU cannot fit. Its 400 MHz base clock and 2900 MHz boost clock show it can scale up under load, but the 256 shading units limit its absolute ceiling. The RX 9050's 1,024 shading units at a 1920 MHz game clock produce far more work per cycle, and the 128-bit GDDR6 interface removes the memory bottleneck that system-shared designs face.

A user requiring maximum graphics throughput, dedicated memory, and ray tracing capability should select the RX 9050 based on the recorded specifications. A user constrained to an integrated solution with minimal power draw should use the 840M, but they should expect performance roughly a seventh of the RX 9050 in raw FP32 terms. The data does not support any scenario where the 840M outperforms the RX 9050 in compute, pixel, or texture throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Radeon RX 9050, at 10.65 TFLOPS, compared to the Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. This is approximately a 7.2x difference.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The RX 9050 has a 92 W TDP, while the 840M has a 15 W TDP. The RX 9050 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector, whereas the 840M is an IGP with no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 9050 has 16 RT cores, while the 840M has 4 RT cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Are they on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the 840M uses RDNA 3.5.

Q: What is the bus interface for each?

A: The RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, and the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | AMD Radeon RX 9050 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Chip | Krackan Point | Navi 44 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Navi IV (RX 9000) |

| Transistors | unknown | 29,700 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 199 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 149.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1330 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Game Clock | null | 1920 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | System Dependent | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 16 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 166.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 166.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 10.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 92 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-07-27 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Navi III |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 50 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 0 | 0 |