AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc 140V Mobile are both integrated graphics processors designed for thin-and-light laptops, but the recorded data shows they pursue different design targets. The Radeon 840M, built on Krackan Point with RDNA 3.5 architecture, operates from a 4 nm process node, while the Arc 140V Mobile, part of the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture, uses a 3 nm process node. These fundamental differences in process technology, core configuration, and power envelope produce distinct performance profiles that the database measurements help clarify.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two parts. The wins counters for both sides are zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks list is empty. Consequently, the analysis below relies entirely on the architectural parameters and computed throughput rates listed in the specification records, which provide a meaningful basis for comparison despite the absence of synthetic or real-world test scores.

The most decisive difference appears in raw compute throughput. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is approximately 1.4848 TFLOPS. This puts the Intel part at roughly 2.69 times the FP32 rate of the AMD part, a substantial gap. The shading unit count explains much of this: the Arc 140V has 1024 shading units against 256 for the Radeon 840M, exactly four times the core count. Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The Intel GPU reaches 124.8 GTexel/s and 62.40 GPixel/s, while the AMD GPU manages 46.40 GTexel/s and 23.20 GPixel/s. The Intel part is approximately 2.69 times faster in texture fill and pixel fill, matching the FP32 ratio.

FP16 throughput shows a different relationship. The Radeon 840M lists FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it offers no advantage for half-precision workloads. The Arc 140V Mobile lists FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which is exactly twice its FP32 rate. This makes the Intel GPU about 5.38 times faster than the AMD GPU in FP16 compute, a wider margin than in FP32. Applications that rely on half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference paths, would see a more pronounced advantage for the Intel part.

Clock speeds partially offset the core count disparity. The AMD Radeon 840M runs at a base clock of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a lower base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1950 MHz. The AMD GPU's higher boost clock, roughly 48.7% above the Intel figure, helps close the raw throughput gap, but the fourfold advantage in shading units for Intel remains dominant. The pixel rate calculation confirms this: 62.40 GPixel/s for Intel versus 23.20 GPixel/s for AMD, a 2.69 ratio that matches the FP32 comparison rather than the clock ratio.

Ray tracing resources also differ. The Intel part contains 8 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part contains 4. This doubles the RT hardware available on the Intel GPU. The ROP count is 32 for Intel and 8 for AMD, a 4x difference. TMUs are 64 versus 16, also 4x. These ratios align with the shading unit comparison and suggest consistent scaling across the entire execution pipeline for the Intel architecture.

Power consumption presents a notable trade-off. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, while the AMD Radeon 840M operates at 15 W. The Intel part consumes roughly 2.47 times the power of the AMD part. When factoring the FP32 throughput ratio of 2.69, the efficiency per watt is similar, with the Intel part holding a slight edge: 3.994 TFLOPS divided by 37 W equals approximately 0.108 TFLOPS per watt, while 1.4848 TFLOPS divided by 15 W equals approximately 0.099 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel GPU is about 9% more efficient in FP32 per watt, though this calculation assumes the TDP figures represent sustained power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 1024 shading units, four times the 256 shading units found in the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile boosts to 1950 MHz. The AMD part has a higher boost clock by approximately 48.7%.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 2.69 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS produced by the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, compared to 15 W for the AMD Radeon 840M. The Intel part draws more than twice the power.

Q: Are both GPUs integrated?

A: Yes, both are IGPs with no separate slot width or power connectors. The AMD Radeon 840M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses an IGP bus interface.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is based on RDNA 3.5 architecture, which the database places in the Navi III IGP generation. It uses the Krackan Point chip. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses Xe2-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation, built on the Lunar Lake chip. Both are integrated processors, but their architectural lineage differs completely: RDNA 3.5 descends from AMD's Navi line, while Xe2-LPG is Intel's second-generation Xe architecture adapted for low-power mobile use.

Process technology separates these parts further. The AMD GPU uses a 4 nm process, while the Intel GPU uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC, per the foundry fields. The die size is unknown for the AMD part, but the Intel part lists a die size of 172 mm². Transistor counts are unknown for both.

Ray tracing support exists on both, but with different hardware allocations. The AMD Radeon 840M has 4 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 8. This doubles the RT hardware for Intel. Neither GPU lists tensor cores, so any AI acceleration must rely on the shading units or ray tracing cores rather than dedicated matrix math hardware.

Shading unit distribution also differs in the texture and render output stages. The AMD GPU has 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The Intel GPU has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs. These are 4x and 4x ratios respectively, consistent with the shading unit count. The pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s for AMD and 62.40 GPixel/s for Intel reflects the ROP and clock combination, with Intel holding the advantage despite the lower boost clock.

Bus interface details differ. The AMD Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, a dedicated host interface. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile lists its bus interface simply as "IGP," with no PCIe generation or lane count specified. Both GPUs share system memory, and neither has a dedicated VRAM allocation. Memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent" for both, meaning the actual throughput depends on the host laptop's memory configuration.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost values. The AMD part starts at 400 MHz and reaches 2900 MHz. The Intel part starts at 300 MHz and reaches 1950 MHz. The AMD GPU's higher boost clock compensates partially for the lower core count, but the architecture's per-clock efficiency cannot be inferred from the recorded data. The FP16 ratios confirm a key architectural difference: AMD runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while Intel doubles the rate in a 2:1 configuration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured field. Process node: 4 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel. Die size: unknown for AMD versus 172 mm² for Intel. Base clock: 400 MHz versus 300 MHz. Boost clock: 2900 MHz versus 1950 MHz. Shading units: 256 versus 1024. TMUs: 16 versus 64. ROPs: 8 versus 32. Ray tracing cores: 4 versus 8. Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS. FP16: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 15 W versus 37 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus IGP.

Release dates also differ. The AMD Radeon 840M has a release date of 2025-02-28, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile is dated 2024-09-23. The Intel part precedes the AMD part by roughly five months. Both GPUs have a production status of "Active," meaning neither is discontinued. Predecessors differ: the AMD part lists "Navi II IGP," while the Intel part lists "HD Graphics-M." Neither has a listed successor.

Memory specifications are identical: both use system shared memory with system shared type and bus width, and both have system dependent bandwidth. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both. API support matches exactly: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for both GPUs. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded, so no pricing information is available.

The slot width is "IGP" for both, and the AMD part explicitly lists "None" for power connectors, while the Intel part leaves that field null. The suggested PSU field is null for both. Dimensions are null for both. The transistor density field is null for both. Neither GPU has any benchmark scores recorded, and both sit at the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU ranking.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Arc 140V Mobile provides substantially higher graphics throughput across every compute metric. Its FP32 rate of 3.994 TFLOPS is 2.69 times the AMD Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Pixel rate, texture rate, and shading unit counts all show the same approximate 2.69 to 4.0 ratio in favor of Intel. The FP16 advantage is even larger at roughly 5.38 times because Intel doubles its half-precision rate while AMD does not.

The AMD Radeon 840M counters with a much lower power envelope. Its 15 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 37 W. The AMD GPU also has a higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 1950 MHz, which narrows the performance gap per clock but does not overcome the Intel core advantage. For systems where total power draw is the primary constraint, the AMD part is the more conservative choice.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile appears suited for laptops that can accommodate a 37 W power budget and need the highest available integrated graphics performance. Its 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs provide the hardware resources for demanding workloads. The 8 ray tracing cores add capability for ray-traced content. The 3 nm process and 172 mm² die size indicate a larger, more complex chip.

The AMD Radeon 840M targets a different segment: ultra-portable devices where 15 W is the maximum sustainable load. Its 256 shading units and 4 ray tracing cores deliver roughly one quarter of the Intel GPU's raw resource count, but the higher boost clock helps extract more work from each unit. The 4 nm process keeps the chip small enough for tight thermal constraints.

Both GPUs share the same API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both rely on system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making the host system's memory bandwidth a common bottleneck. Neither has recorded benchmark scores, so practical application performance remains unquantified in the database.

The choice between these two depends on the power budget and the performance ceiling required. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile leads in all measured throughput metrics by a wide margin, at the cost of more than double the TDP. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers roughly 37% of the FP32 throughput at about 40% of the power draw (1,484.8 GFLOPS divided by 3.994 TFLOPS equals 0.372, and 15 W divided by 37 W equals 0.405). For users who prioritize raw performance and have adequate power headroom, the Intel part is the stronger option. For users who need minimal power consumption and are willing to accept lower absolute performance, the AMD part is the more appropriate fit.