AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Arc Pro B65 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural generations of the AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Arc Pro B65?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Krackan Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G21 chip, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 has 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in power requirements and physical design?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a dual-slot card with a 200 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 significantly outperforms the AMD Radeon 840M, with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the floating-point performance figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Intel card achieves 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 rate) compared to the AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1 rate).

Q: What display outputs are available on each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop or mini-PC implementation. The Intel Arc Pro B65 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Arc Pro B65 represent fundamentally different design philosophies and target segments. The AMD part is a mobile integrated GPU built on TSMC's 4 nm process, part of the Krackan Point chip. It uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, which is a refinement of AMD's graphics core layout optimized for power efficiency within the constraints of an APU. The chip integrates 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. It also includes 4 ray tracing cores, though the overall scale is modest.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a discrete, dual-slot workstation card built on TSMC's 5 nm process with the BMG-G21 chip. It uses the Xe2-HPG architecture from the Battlemage generation, designed for higher performance in professional workloads. The chip contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The GPU has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, along with 20 ray tracing cores.

The process node difference is notable: AMD uses 4 nm while Intel uses 5 nm, both from TSMC. However, the Intel chip is dramatically larger in physical scale and transistor count, reflecting its discrete design. The AMD part has no disclosed transistor count or die size, consistent with its role as an integrated component within a larger APU die.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The AMD Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM pool. Its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent. The Intel Arc Pro B65 carries 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated high-bandwidth memory is critical for compute-heavy professional applications.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, a wide range that allows aggressive power management. The Intel card runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost, indicating a steady-state operating point. The Intel memory clock is 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective data rate.

The bus interface separates them further: the AMD Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. This gives the Intel card twice the PCIe lanes and a newer protocol generation, which matters for data transfer in professional workloads.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part is listed with an active production status and a release date of 2025-02-28, while the Intel card is also active with a release date of 2026-03-31. The AMD predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M is built for integrated, low-power scenarios. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is intended for thin-and-light laptops and portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. The 400 MHz base clock allows deep idle states, and the 2900 MHz boost provides bursts of performance when needed. The system shared memory approach eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM, saving cost and board space in compact designs. For everyday graphics, light content creation, and battery-conscious portable use, the AMD part is designed to deliver sufficient performance within strict thermal limits.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 is a discrete workstation GPU with a 200 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and dedicated 32 GB GDDR6 memory. Its 608.0 GB/s bandwidth and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute make it suited for professional rendering, AI inference, video processing, and other compute-intensive tasks that require sustained throughput. The 20 ray tracing cores and 80 ROPs provide substantial geometry and pixel processing capability. The four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-monitor professional setups. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface allows high-speed data exchange with the host system, which is important for large datasets.

The benchmark data shows both GPUs have an identical percentile versus all GPUs at 50, and both have zero recorded benchmark scores. Without recorded performance measurements, the functional split is defined entirely by architectural specifications. The AMD part wins in power efficiency, portability, and integration simplicity. The Intel part wins in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and dedicated resources.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | Intel Arc Pro B65 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Battlemage (Pro Series) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | N/A | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 608.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 16 | 160 |

| ROPs | 8 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-03-31 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark entries, no wins for either GPU, and no nearest rivals with scores or delta percentage values. Both GPUs have an average benchmark score of zero and an identical percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. The absence of measured performance data means the comparison relies entirely on the architectural specifications provided.

The most decisive numerical contrasts come from the raw throughput figures. In FP32 compute, the Intel Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS, which is 8.28 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon 840M. In FP16, the Intel card produces 24.58 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for AMD, a 16.55 times advantage. The Intel GPU's FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate, reflecting a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part runs at a 1:1 ratio.

Pixel throughput shows a similar disparity. The Intel GPU outputs 192.0 GPixel/s, which is 8.28 times the 23.20 GPixel/s of the AMD part. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 384.0 GTexel/s for Intel versus 46.40 GTexel/s for AMD, an 8.28 times difference. These ratios align with the shading unit count, where Intel has 2,560 units versus 256 for AMD, exactly 10 times more.

Memory bandwidth is another major separator. The Intel card provides 608.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth, while the AMD GPU's bandwidth is system dependent and cannot be quantified from the available data. The Intel card's 32 GB GDDR6 memory capacity far exceeds the system shared allocation available to the AMD IGP.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Radeon 840M has a higher boost clock at 2900 MHz compared to the Intel card's fixed 2400 MHz. This suggests the AMD part can reach high instantaneous clock rates for short bursts, though its overall execution resources are far smaller. The Intel card's flat 2400 MHz base and boost indicates a design optimized for consistent sustained throughput rather than bursty operation.

The power envelope separates them by 185 W. The AMD Radeon 840M operates at 15 W, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 requires 200 W and a 550 W suggested PSU. This 13.33 times difference in TDP directly explains the performance gap: the Intel GPU consumes more power to drive 10 times the shading units, 10 times the TMUs, 10 times the ROPs, and 5 times the ray tracing cores.

The release timeline shows the AMD part launched on 2025-02-28, while the Intel card is dated 2026-03-31. Both are listed as active production products. The AMD GPU's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the Intel card has no listed predecessor in the database.

Given the absence of recorded benchmark scores, the specification data indicates that the Intel Arc Pro B65 dominates in every measurable compute and memory metric, while the AMD Radeon 840M offers a dramatically lower power footprint and integrated form factor. The identical percentile ranks and zero scores for both GPUs mean that no performance validation exists in the database to refine this comparison further.