AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses Xe-LPG on TSMC's 3 nm process. The AMD part is built on the Krackan Point chip, whereas Intel's solution is part of the Arrow Lake-S platform.

Q: How do the shading resources compare between these two integrated GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Intel's part also includes 4 ray tracing cores, while the AMD part lists no ray tracing core count in the database.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The AMD part runs at a significantly higher boost frequency.

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings differ?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is rated at 65 W TDP. This indicates a substantial difference in power allocation between the two integrated solutions.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU sits at the 3rd percentile, indicating a much lower relative standing in overall performance.

Q: What benchmark data exists for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU?

A: The database records a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark score of 733 for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. No benchmark scores are recorded for the AMD Radeon 840M in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two integrated GPUs is substantial. AMD's Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5, a newer iteration of AMD's graphics architecture, and uses the Krackan Point chip. Intel's Arc Graphics 64EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture from the Arc Graphics generation, built for the Arrow Lake-S platform.

Manufacturing processes differ notably. The AMD part uses TSMC's 4 nm process node. Intel's solution uses TSMC's 3 nm process node. Intel's chip carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a transistor density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. Intel's Arc Graphics 64EU fields 512 shading units, double the 256 shading units of AMD's Radeon 840M. Intel also doubles texture mapping units with 32 versus 16, and ROPs with 16 versus 8. AMD's part includes 4 dedicated ray tracing cores, while Intel's database entry does not list any ray tracing core count.

Clock behavior favors AMD. The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, a full 1000 MHz higher than Intel's 1900 MHz boost. Base clocks also differ, with AMD at 400 MHz and Intel at 300 MHz. These clock advantages partially compensate for AMD's lower shading unit count.

Memory architecture is shared in concept: both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The interface differs, however. AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel's entry lists a Ring Bus interface. Both are IGP slot width solutions with no dedicated power connectors, though Intel's TDP is 65 W compared to AMD's 15 W.

The API support is effectively identical. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release timing differs by several months, with Intel launching on October 23, 2024, and AMD on February 28, 2025.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison. The AMD Radeon 840M holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, placing it in the middle of the performance distribution. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU holds a 3rd percentile ranking, placing it near the bottom of the distribution. This is a stark divergence in relative standing.

The Intel part's only recorded benchmark, a score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, places it in direct competition with older discrete mobile GPUs. The nearest rivals show it matching the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU with identical scores of 733 and zero percent difference. It edges ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M by 1.4 percent, and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M by 2.4 percent. These are low-end comparisons from the database's historical record.

The AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so a direct numerical comparison is impossible. Its 50th percentile ranking, however, indicates a fundamentally different performance tier. The data suggests the AMD part occupies a mid-range position, while the Intel part sits in the entry-level segment.

For users relying on database rankings, the AMD Radeon 840M is the higher-positioned part. Its 15 W TDP also indicates it is designed for power-constrained systems. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, with its 65 W TDP, draws substantially more power while ranking far lower in the percentile distribution.

The choice hinges on the performance tier implied by the percentile data. The AMD part's mid-pack ranking suggests it delivers competitive integrated graphics performance. The Intel part's low percentile and its benchmark parity with much older discrete parts indicate a more modest capability. Based strictly on the database's percentile fields, the AMD Radeon 840M is the stronger option.

Specification Differences

The two integrated GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

Process node: AMD uses 4 nm, Intel uses 3 nm.

Transistors: AMD is unknown, Intel is 17,800 million.

Die size: AMD is unknown, Intel is 243 mm².

Transistor density: AMD is not listed, Intel is 73.3 million per mm².

Base clock: AMD runs at 400 MHz, Intel at 300 MHz.

Boost clock: AMD runs at 2900 MHz, Intel at 1900 MHz.

Shading units: AMD has 256, Intel has 512.

Texture mapping units: AMD has 16, Intel has 32.

ROPs: AMD has 8, Intel has 16.

Ray tracing cores: AMD has 4, Intel lists none.

Pixel rate: AMD delivers 23.20 GPixel/s, Intel delivers 30.40 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: AMD delivers 46.40 GTexel/s, Intel delivers 60.80 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance: AMD delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, Intel delivers 1.946 TFLOPS.

FP16 performance: AMD delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, Intel delivers 3.891 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

TDP: AMD is rated at 15 W, Intel at 65 W.

Bus interface: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel uses Ring Bus.

Chip: AMD uses Krackan Point, Intel uses Arrow Lake-S.

Architecture: AMD uses RDNA 3.5, Intel uses Xe-LPG.

Generation: AMD is Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile), Intel is Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake).

Release date: AMD launched February 28, 2025, Intel launched October 23, 2024.

Predecessor: AMD lists Navi II IGP, Intel lists HD Graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The only recorded benchmark belongs to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, which scored 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. No scores exist for the AMD Radeon 840M.

The Intel part's 733 score places it at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are other Intel integrated parts and older discrete mobile GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU both match the 733 score exactly, with zero percent difference. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4 percent. This cluster of results indicates that the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU performs in a narrow band around these legacy parts.

Without benchmark data for the AMD Radeon 840M, the head-to-head analysis must rest on the percentile fields. The AMD part's 50th percentile ranking versus Intel's 3rd percentile is the most direct comparative signal in the database. A 47-percentile gap separates the two in overall GPU standings.

The theoretical throughput figures favor Intel in several raw metrics. Intel's FP32 output of 1.946 TFLOPS exceeds AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Intel's FP16 output of 3.891 TFLOPS more than doubles AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, though Intel achieves this via a 2:1 ratio while AMD uses a 1:1 ratio. Intel also leads in pixel rate at 30.40 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and in texture rate at 60.80 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

AMD's advantages lie in clock speed and power efficiency. The 2900 MHz boost clock is over 50 percent higher than Intel's 1900 MHz. AMD's 15 W TDP is less than a quarter of Intel's 65 W rating. These factors suggest AMD achieves its mid-pack percentile with far lower power draw and higher clock frequencies, while Intel relies on a larger shading unit count and higher TDP to produce its raw throughput numbers.

The percentile discrepancy remains the dominant finding. Intel's 3rd percentile placement with a 733 benchmark score indicates its real-world performance aligns with the lowest tier of the database. AMD's 50th percentile placement, even without a recorded score, indicates a fundamentally different performance class. The data supports the conclusion that the AMD Radeon 840M is the higher-performing integrated GPU, despite Intel's larger compute resource allocation.