AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile are both integrated graphics solutions for laptops, but the recorded specifications show two very different design approaches. The AMD part uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part uses Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm Intel process. The database lists no direct benchmark scores for either product, so the analysis below relies entirely on the recorded specification fields, including clock rates, shading resources, compute throughput, and API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark measurements for the AMD Radeon 840M versus the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival data. The wins counters for both products are set to zero. Without recorded frame rates, synthetic scores, or percentile comparisons against other GPUs, a numerical performance comparison cannot be derived from the available facts.

What the data does provide are theoretical throughput figures computed from clock speeds and shader counts. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile shows a peak FP32 rate of 4.608 TFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS (which converts to roughly 1.485 TFLOPS). That places the Intel part at approximately three times the FP32 throughput based on the recorded numbers. The pixel rate tells a similar story: Intel lists 72.00 GPixel/s versus AMD's 23.20 GPixel/s, a difference of about 3.1x. The texture rate also favors Intel: 144.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, again around 3.1x higher.

The FP16 figures show a different relationship. The AMD Radeon 840M lists FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes half-precision at the same rate as single-precision. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lists FP16 at 9.216 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. In absolute terms, Intel's FP16 throughput is roughly 6.2 times higher than AMD's FP16 figure.

These are peak theoretical rates, not measured application performance. The database does not confirm that either GPU reaches these limits in real workloads. The absence of benchmark scores means the head-to-head comparison must remain at the specification level, and the specifications clearly favor Intel on raw compute throughput, pixel fill, and texture fill.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M holds advantages in several specification categories. Its boost clock is 2900 MHz compared to Intel's 2250 MHz, a 650 MHz higher peak clock rate. The base clock is also higher: 400 MHz versus 300 MHz. The AMD part uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, which supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1). That means the AMD GPU includes features tied to the 12_2 feature level, such as hardware ray tracing support, which the database confirms through its 4 RT cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no recorded RT cores.

The AMD Radeon 840M also has a lower TDP at 15 W, compared to Intel's 28 W. For thin-and-light laptops, the lower power envelope could translate into less thermal strain and longer battery life, though the database does not include battery or thermal measurements to confirm this. The process node also differs: AMD uses 4 nm TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm Intel. A smaller process node typically allows higher efficiency, but the database does not provide efficiency metrics.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins on raw resource counts. It lists 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The AMD Radeon 840M lists 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Intel's part has four times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. The FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate figures all reflect this resource advantage. Intel also has a higher TDP at 28 W, which allows more sustained power draw and likely explains the higher clock-independent throughput.

For use cases, the data suggests Intel's part would handle compute-heavy workloads better, given the 4.608 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.216 TFLOPS FP16 figures. AMD's part, with its RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, would offer hardware-accelerated ray tracing that Intel's listed specifications do not include. The AMD part also operates at a lower TDP, making it suitable for smaller chassis, while Intel's higher TDP implies a need for more robust cooling.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5, a graphics architecture from AMD's Navi III IGP generation, specifically for the Strix Point Mobile platform. The chip is called Krackan Point. The process node is 4 nm, fabricated by TSMC. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1, meaning the GPU does not double half-precision throughput.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is built on Xe-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for Meteor Lake. The process node is 10 nm, fabricated by Intel. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 2:1, meaning half-precision compute runs at twice the rate of single-precision.

The most significant architectural difference is ray tracing support. The AMD Radeon 840M lists 4 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no recorded RT cores. The database also shows a DirectX feature level difference: 12_2 for AMD versus 12_1 for Intel. DirectX 12 Ultimate is a superset that includes features like ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading, which are not present in the 12_1 feature level.

The memory architecture is identical in description: both use System Shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Shared or System Dependent. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses Ring Bus. The ring bus connects the GPU directly to the CPU's memory controller in Intel's Meteor Lake design, while AMD's PCIe interface routes through the system's PCIe lanes.

The transistor count and die size are unknown for both parts, so density comparisons cannot be made. The clock behavior also differs: AMD's base clock is 400 MHz with a boost of 2900 MHz, while Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2250 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 650 MHz higher, but Intel's higher shader count compensates in throughput calculations.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two products differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | AMD Radeon 840M | Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile |

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

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Chip | Krackan Point | Meteor Lake |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe-LPG |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2250 MHz |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 16 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 4 | None recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 72.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 144.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 4.608 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-12-13 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | HD Graphics-M |

Fields that are identical include memory size (System Shared), memory type (System Shared), memory bus width (System Shared), memory bandwidth (System Dependent), slot width (IGP), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), power connectors (None for AMD, not listed for Intel), and production status (Active for both). The launch MSRP is not listed for either product.

The release dates show a notable gap: the Intel part launched on 2023-12-13, while the AMD part launched on 2025-02-28. The Intel part is a Meteor Lake product, while the AMD part is a Strix Point Mobile product. The predecessor fields also differ: AMD lists Navi II IGP, Intel lists HD Graphics-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance according to the database?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lists FP32 at 4.608 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 840M lists FP32 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Intel's FP32 figure is approximately three times higher.

Q: Does either GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M lists 4 RT cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no RT cores recorded in the database. AMD also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features, while Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M lists FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lists FP16 at 9.216 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. Intel's FP16 figure is roughly 6.2 times higher in absolute terms.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W. AMD's part is rated for lower power consumption.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD part uses a smaller fabrication node.

Q: Which product was released earlier?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a release date of 2023-12-13. The AMD Radeon 840M has a release date of 2025-02-28. Intel's product launched earlier by more than a year.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 650 MHz higher.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates a clear split in design priorities. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers substantially higher theoretical compute throughput, with 4.608 TFLOPS FP32, 9.216 TFLOPS FP16, 72.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 144.0 GTexel/s texture rate. These figures come from its 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, which are each four times the counts of the AMD Radeon 840M. For workloads that rely on raw shader throughput, fill rates, or half-precision compute, the Intel part holds the advantage in the database's specification fields.

The AMD Radeon 840M counters with features that the Intel part does not list. It includes 4 RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is a higher feature level than Intel's DirectX 12 (12_1). Its boost clock reaches 2900 MHz, 650 MHz higher than Intel's 2250 MHz. Its TDP is 15 W, which is 13 W lower than Intel's 28 W, suggesting suitability for more power-constrained systems. The AMD part also uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while Intel uses a 10 nm Intel process.

There are no recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict must be drawn from specifications and feature support. A user prioritizing ray tracing and modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features would align with the AMD Radeon 840M. A user prioritizing raw compute throughput, pixel fill, or texture fill would align with the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. The Intel part also launched earlier, on 2023-12-13, while the AMD part launched on 2025-02-28. The database does not provide enough measured performance data to declare a definitive winner, but the specification sheet shows Intel ahead on throughput and AMD ahead on feature set and power efficiency.