AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc A380E shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results, with both products holding an average benchmark score of 0 in the database. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, indicating that the database has no measured performance differential between them at this time. Without recorded frames per second, synthetic scores, or compute results, any direct comparison of gaming or workstation performance must rely on architectural specifications rather than empirical measurements.

The Intel Arc A380E delivers substantially higher theoretical throughput figures across every major compute category. Its FP32 performance reaches 4.096 TFLOPS, which is 2.76 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 840M. The FP16 comparison shows an even wider gap: the Intel part achieves 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for the AMD part, making the Arc A380E 5.52 times faster in half-precision workloads. Pixel fill rates follow a similar pattern, with the Intel GPU producing 64.00 GPixel/s compared to 23.20 GPixel/s for the AMD Radeon 840M, a 2.76x advantage. Texture fill rate stands at 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel versus 46.40 GTexel/s for AMD, again a 2.76x margin.

Memory bandwidth provides one of the clearest separations. The Intel Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s. The AMD Radeon 840M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth labeled as "System Dependent," meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform's memory configuration. In a typical integration, shared memory bandwidth falls far below dedicated GDDR6, so the Intel part holds a decisive advantage in memory-intensive operations.

Clock behavior differs significantly between the two. The AMD Radeon 840M runs at a base clock of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz, a 7.25x dynamic range. The Intel Arc A380E holds a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The AMD part's high boost clock partially compensates for its lower shader count, but not enough to close the raw throughput gap.

Neither GPU has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and no nearest rival data appears for either product. The absence of head-to-head benchmark entries means the database currently presents these as parallel products without validated performance comparisons. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, placing them on equal footing for API feature levels.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380E wins in every category where a direct hardware specification can be compared. Its 1024 shading units outnumber the AMD Radeon 840M's 256 shading units by 4x. Texture mapping units stand at 64 versus 16, a 4x margin, and render output units at 32 versus 8, also 4x. The Intel GPU carries 8 ray tracing cores versus 4 for AMD, doubling the RT workload capacity. These structural advantages translate directly into the fill rate and TFLOPS figures already noted.

Memory capacity favors Intel decisively. The Arc A380E comes with 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6, while the Radeon 840M shares system memory with no fixed allocation. For workloads that exceed the shared memory pool or suffer from system memory latency, the Intel part provides predictable, high-bandwidth storage. The 186.0 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed hardware property, whereas the AMD part's bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning its realized performance relies on the host CPU and memory subsystem.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins on power efficiency and physical integration. Its TDP is 15 W, exactly one-fifth of the Intel Arc A380E's 75 W. The AMD part is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Intel card is a single-slot add-in board measuring 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm. The Intel GPU has no power connectors either, but its suggested PSU of 250 W indicates a need for a more substantial system power supply. The AMD part's 4 nm process node, built by TSMC, gives it a density advantage over the Intel part's 6 nm node from the same foundry; the Intel die measures 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors and a density of 45.9M per mm², while the AMD die size and transistor count remain unknown.

The AMD Radeon 840M also wins on release timing and production status. It launched on 2025-02-28 and remains Active, while the Intel Arc A380E launched on 2024-03-31 and is listed as End-of-life, with its successor named Battlemage. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while Intel's predecessor is Xe Graphics. For system integration, the AMD IGP uses PCIe 4.0 x8, identical to the Intel card's bus interface, so no advantage accrues on that front.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Arc A380E is the stronger performer by every measurable compute metric. Its FP32 throughput of 4.096 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput of 8.192 TFLOPS, pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 128.0 GTexel/s all exceed the AMD Radeon 840M's corresponding values by a factor of 2.76 or more. The 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, dedicated resource that the AMD part cannot match with system shared memory. Any application that depends on sustained memory throughput, ray tracing (8 RT cores versus 4), or raw shader count will favor the Intel part.

The AMD Radeon 840M holds advantages in power consumption and integration flexibility. At 15 W TDP, it fits into portable or low-power designs where the 75 W Intel card cannot operate. Its 4 nm process node, compared to Intel's 6 nm, suggests better transistor efficiency, though the database does not provide AMD's transistor count or die size to confirm. The AMD part is also actively produced, while the Intel part is end-of-life, which matters for new system designs that require long-term availability.

For a desktop or embedded system where performance is the priority, the Intel Arc A380E is the clear choice from the data. For a mobile or power-constrained platform where the GPU must share system memory and stay within a 15 W envelope, the AMD Radeon 840M is the only viable option. The database shows no benchmark overlap, so users who need validated performance numbers should note that these conclusions derive from architectural specifications, not measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS, which is 2.76 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with no fixed capacity and bandwidth labeled as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W. The Intel card also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has 8 ray tracing cores, double the 4 found in the AMD Radeon 840M.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is listed as Active and launched on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc A380E is listed as End-of-life, launched on 2024-03-31, with Battlemage named as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture built on TSMC's 4 nm process, part of the Krackan Point chip within the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its shading array consists of 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. The GPU runs with a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. It reports FP32 and FP16 performance at the same 1,484.8 GFLOPS figure, indicating a 1:1 ratio for half-precision work. Memory is entirely system shared, with no dedicated VRAM, a system-dependent bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The TDP is 15 W, it is an IGP with no slot width, and it uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are portable device dependent, and it has no power connectors.

The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-128 chip, built on TSMC's 6 nm process, part of the Alchemist generation under the Arc 3 family. It integrates 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. Base and boost clocks are both 2000 MHz, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz or 15.5 Gbps effective. It uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus for 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. FP32 throughput is 4.096 TFLOPS, and FP16 reaches 8.192 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The TDP is 75 W, it occupies a single slot, and it measures 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm. Display outputs include four DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, and it uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 250 W.

Manufacturing and process differences matter for power density. The AMD part uses a 4 nm node, which is the more advanced process, while Intel uses a 6 nm node. Both come from TSMC, but the database does not provide AMD's transistor count or die size, so a direct density comparison is impossible. The Intel part's die size and transistor count are fully documented, while the AMD part's remain unknown. The AMD GPU has a 7.25x boost range from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz, suggesting aggressive power management to fit within its 15 W envelope. The Intel GPU runs at a constant 2000 MHz, simplifying its power profile but also fixing its operating point.

The production lifecycle diverges: the AMD Radeon 840M is active and newer, while the Intel Arc A380E is end-of-life with a named successor. Both support identical API feature sets, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility does not differentiate them. The database shows no head-to-head benchmarks, no nearest rivals, and zero average benchmark scores for either product, meaning all architectural comparisons above rest on the recorded specifications rather than measured outcomes.