AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc A310E. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival comparisons. The lack of measured data means the two GPUs cannot be ranked against each other through actual test runs in the current database.

What can be established from the recorded specifications is the theoretical throughput difference. The Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.07 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.4848 TFLOPS) of the AMD Radeon 840M. In FP16 workloads, the Intel part reaches 6.144 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part stays at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel GPU also has higher pixel throughput at 32.00 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and higher texture throughput at 64.00 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon 840M counters with a higher boost clock. Its boost reaches 2900 MHz, while the Intel Arc A310E is fixed at 2000 MHz for both base and boost. However, the Intel part runs more than twice the shading units: 768 versus 256. It also has double the texture mapping units (32 versus 16) and double the render output units (16 versus 8). The Intel GPU carries six ray tracing cores against the AMD part's four.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The Intel Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M depends on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This is a structural advantage for the Intel part in memory-heavy workloads, though the exact magnitude depends on the host system's memory configuration for the AMD GPU.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They share the same API feature level, so software compatibility is not a differentiator in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built on the Krackan Point chip. It is part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The Intel Arc A310E uses Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, built on the DG2-128 chip. It belongs to the Alchemist generation under the Arc 3 branding.

The process node difference is meaningful: 4 nm versus 6 nm. The AMD part integrates into a mobile processor as an IGP, so it has no slot width, no power connectors, and its display outputs depend on the portable device. The Intel Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

The Intel GPU discloses its full silicon details. It has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible from the database.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate. The AMD Radeon 840M relies entirely on system shared memory, with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth. The AMD part's memory clock is also system shared.

Compute resource allocation differs by a factor of three in shading units: 768 for Intel versus 256 for AMD. Texture mapping units are 32 versus 16, and render output units are 16 versus 8. Ray tracing cores are 6 versus 4. The Intel GPU's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput, indicating a 2:1 ratio. The AMD GPU's FP16 equals its FP32 at 1:1, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration path is recorded.

Power envelopes are far apart. The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP. The Intel part runs at a fixed 2000 MHz clock, whereas the AMD part ranges from 400 MHz base to 2900 MHz boost. The AMD GPU's PCIe interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and the Intel GPU uses the same PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Production status also differs. The AMD Radeon 840M is listed as active, released on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with Battlemage listed as its successor and Xe Graphics as its predecessor. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and it has no recorded successor.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins on raw compute throughput across all recorded metrics. FP32 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS, more than double. FP16 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a factor of 4.14. Pixel rate is 32.00 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, a 1.38 times advantage. Texture rate is 64.00 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a 1.38 times advantage. The Intel GPU also has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores, all higher than the AMD part's 256, 16, 8, and 4 respectively.

The Intel Arc A310E also wins on memory determinism. It has a fixed 4 GB GDDR6 allocation with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, which does not depend on the host system. The AMD Radeon 840M's bandwidth is system dependent, so its memory performance varies with the platform. For workloads sensitive to bandwidth consistency, the Intel part provides a stable baseline.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins on power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is one fifth of the Intel part's 75 W TDP. It also has a significantly higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 2000 MHz, which partially compensates for the lower shader count in clock-bound scenarios. The AMD GPU's 4 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage over the Intel part's 6 nm node, likely contributing to its lower power draw.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins on integration flexibility. As an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors, it requires no additional hardware beyond the host processor. The Intel Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card needing a 250 W suggested PSU, though it uses no power connectors. The AMD part's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it works in laptops and compact systems. The Intel part offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs for multi-monitor setups.

The AMD Radeon 840M also wins on production status. It is active, while the Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life. The Intel GPU's successor is already designated as Battlemage, indicating the platform is being phased out. The AMD part has no successor listed, suggesting active development and support.

For API support, both GPUs are identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has an advantage in software feature support based on the recorded data.

The Verdict

The database shows two GPUs with different design philosophies. The Intel Arc A310E is a discrete GPU optimized for raw throughput. Its 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, 6.144 TFLOPS FP16, 124.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth, and 768 shading units make it the stronger compute performer in every measured specification. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU optimized for efficiency, with a 15 W TDP and a 2900 MHz boost clock on a 4 nm process.

For applications that demand maximum shading throughput, texture fill, pixel fill, or ray tracing core count, the Intel Arc A310E is the clear choice from the data. It doubles or more than doubles the AMD part in most compute metrics. Its fixed 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth removes system dependency from memory performance. The Intel part also has a longer physical footprint with a single-slot design and four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, suitable for systems with discrete GPU mounting space.

For systems where power is constrained, the AMD Radeon 840M is the only viable option. Its 15 W TDP fits into mobile and compact platforms where a 75 W discrete card cannot be accommodated. The higher boost clock of 2900 MHz gives it a clock-speed advantage that partially offsets its lower shader count. Its active production status means it is currently available, while the Intel part is end-of-life.

The data does not provide a single winner because the two GPUs serve different physical and power envelopes. The Intel Arc A310E wins on performance specifications. The AMD Radeon 840M wins on power consumption and integration. The absence of actual benchmark scores means no performance-per-watt ratio can be calculated from the database. Both GPUs share the same API feature levels, so software compatibility is not a deciding factor.

The Intel Arc A310E's successor is Battlemage, and its predecessor is Xe Graphics. The AMD Radeon 840M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, with no successor listed. This suggests the AMD part is the newer product in the current lineup, released on 2025-02-28 versus the Intel part's 2024-03-31 release.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part is approximately 2.07 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Intel part's memory clock is 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP. The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD part consumes one fifth the power of the Intel part.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. No API advantage exists between the two.

Q: What are the production statuses of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is active, released on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with Battlemage listed as its successor.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 840M has 4 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 1.5 times the ray tracing core count of the AMD part.