AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Pro A60 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a fundamental performance gap between these two GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro A60 holds an average benchmark score of 60,326, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon 840M, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, meaning no standardized benchmark scores have been recorded for it in the database. This makes direct numerical comparison impossible for most workloads, but the available data for the Arc Pro A60 provides a clear reference point.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 delivers 8.397 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is a substantial figure for a professional-grade card. Its FP16 throughput reaches 16.79 TFLOPS, exactly double the FP32 rate due to a 2:1 ratio. The AMD Radeon 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 1.4848 TFLOPS, meaning the Arc Pro A60 has roughly 5.65 times the raw FP32 compute capability. The FP16 performance of the 840M is identical to its FP32 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS, following a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Arc Pro A60 doubles its throughput when switching to FP16.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story. The Arc Pro A60 reaches 131.2 GPixel/s, while the 840M manages 23.20 GPixel/s. This is a 5.66x advantage for the Intel card. Texture fill rates show the Arc Pro A60 at 262.4 GTexel/s against 46.40 GTexel/s for the AMD part, again a roughly 5.66x difference. These ratios are consistent because the clock and execution unit counts scale proportionally across these metrics.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc Pro A60 scores 63,485. Its Vulkan score is 57,166. The average of these two is 60,326, which matches the database average. When compared to its nearest rivals, the Arc Pro A60 sits within 0% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, which scores 60,347. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M by 2.5%, which scores 61,896. The Arc Pro A60 is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, which scores 60,140, and 2.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710, which scores 58,657. These deltas show the Arc Pro A60 performing at a level comparable to much more expensive workstation GPUs, with the closest rival, the RTX 4090, being essentially tied in average score.

The AMD Radeon 840M has no nearest rivals listed and no benchmark scores, so its measured performance cannot be placed in the same comparative framework. The data that does exist comes from its specification sheet, which indicates a much lower compute ceiling. The 840M uses a 15 W TDP, while the Arc Pro A60 uses 130 W. This power difference explains the performance gulf: the 840M is an integrated graphics processor designed for efficiency, while the Arc Pro A60 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro A60 wins in every measurable compute category recorded in the database. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and compute workloads that spill beyond the cache. The 840M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, which means its effective memory performance varies with the host platform and cannot match dedicated VRAM. For professional workloads such as 3D rendering, GPU-accelerated video encoding, or general OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks, the Arc Pro A60 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Arc Pro A60 also supports four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. The 840M has display outputs described as portable device dependent, meaning the connectors depend on the laptop or mini PC it is integrated into. For desktop workstation use with multiple displays, the Arc Pro A60 has a distinct advantage.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 15 W TDP is appropriate for thin-and-light laptops, and it requires no power connectors. The Arc Pro A60 needs a 300 W suggested power supply, making it unsuitable for portable systems. The 840M is an IGP, so it occupies no expansion slot and uses the PCIe 4.0 x8 bus, while the Arc Pro A60 is a single-slot card using PCIe 4.0 x16. For a user building a compact, low-power system where integrated graphics are sufficient, the 840M is the only option that fits the constraints. However, the benchmark data does not show any workload where the 840M outperforms the Arc Pro A60 in raw GPU compute.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 840M compare to the Intel Arc Pro A60 in raw compute performance?

A: The Arc Pro A60 delivers 8.397 TFLOPS FP32 and 16.79 TFLOPS FP16. The 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.4848 TFLOPS) for both FP32 and FP16. The Arc Pro A60 has approximately 5.65 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Arc Pro A60 has 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 840M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The Arc Pro A60 has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63,485 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 57,166, averaging 60,326. The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the Arc Pro A60 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is within 0% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, 2.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710, and 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The 840M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU supports more display outputs?

A: The Arc Pro A60 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The 840M has display outputs that are portable device dependent, so the number and type of outputs vary by the host device.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | Intel Arc Pro A60 |

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

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | not listed | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 16 | 128 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 131.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 262.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | not listed |

| Suggested PSU | not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-06-05 |

The Arc Pro A60 has 8 times the shading units, 8 times the TMUs, and 8 times the ROPs of the 840M. It also has 4 times the RT cores. The process node favors the 840M at 4 nm versus 6 nm, but the Arc Pro A60 compensates with a much larger die and far higher clocked memory.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a chip called Krackan Point. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile and is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. It is the successor to the Navi II IGP line. 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 gain a throughput advantage when operating on half-precision data.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-256 chip. It belongs to the Alchemist Pro Series generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 11,500 million transistors across a 269 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 2:1, so it executes half-precision workloads at twice the rate of full precision. The API support matches the 840M: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Both GPUs expose 4 ray tracing cores on the 840M versus 16 on the Arc Pro A60, but neither lists tensor cores. The 840M is an integrated part with system shared memory, while the Arc Pro A60 is a discrete card with its own GDDR6 frame buffer. The memory clock for the Arc Pro A60 is 2000 MHz, with 16 Gbps effective data rate.

The release dates differ by roughly 20 months. The Arc Pro A60 launched on 2023-06-05, while the 840M launched on 2025-02-28. Both are currently marked as active production parts. The 840M has no listed predecessor in the database beyond the Navi II IGP reference, and neither part has a recorded successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for performance-sensitive workloads: the Intel Arc Pro A60 is the stronger GPU by a wide margin. Its 8.397 TFLOPS FP32 output, 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 131.2 GPixel/s fill rate put it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60,326. The nearest rivals in the database, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, are within a few percentage points, which indicates the Arc Pro A60 competes at a high level despite being a professional workstation card rather than a gaming flagship.

The AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark scores, so its real-world performance cannot be quantified from the database. Its specifications show a part designed for a different purpose: 15 W TDP, integrated graphics, no dedicated memory, and a 50th percentile standing. It will fit into systems where the Arc Pro A60 cannot physically or thermally exist. The 840M uses a newer 4 nm process and a higher boost clock of 2900 MHz versus 2050 MHz, but the execution unit count and memory subsystem differences are too large to overcome.

For a user selecting between these two parts, the choice is dictated by the system form factor. In a laptop or compact IGP build, the 840M is the only viable option. In a desktop with a 300 W power supply and a PCIe 4.0 x16 slot, the Arc Pro A60 offers roughly 5.65 times the FP32 compute, 5.66 times the pixel rate, and 5.66 times the texture rate, along with 12 GB of dedicated VRAM and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Arc Pro A60 also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, which the 840M lacks, making it more efficient for half-precision compute tasks. The database records no scenario where the 840M wins a benchmark, so the verdict for raw performance is unambiguous.