AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 840M and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet both sit at the 50th percentile in the database’s performance distribution. This unusual pairing presents a stark contrast: one is a 15-watt integrated graphics processor designed for thin-and-light laptops, the other a 300-watt dual-slot accelerator with 48 GB of HBM2e memory aimed at data center workloads. The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark results, no wins for either side, and no nearest rivals, so this analysis relies entirely on the specification differences and what those imply for real-world usage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in scenarios where power efficiency and portability are the primary constraints. Its 15 W thermal design power is the lowest figure in the entire comparison, allowing it to operate without any power connectors and fit as an integrated graphics processor. The chip uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, which enables a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz within that tight power envelope. The system-shared memory architecture means the 840M draws from the host system’s RAM, which is typical for integrated solutions. This makes the 840M the clear choice for mobile computing, where the alternative 300 W power draw would be physically impossible to sustain in a laptop chassis. The 840M also supports DisplayPort outputs that are portable-device dependent, meaning it can drive displays on the go, whereas the Intel Max 1100 has no display outputs whatsoever.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 performance of 22.22 TFLOPS dwarfs the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a gap of roughly 15 times. The Max 1100 delivers 1.23 TB/s of memory bandwidth from its 48 GB HBM2e stack, compared to the 840M’s system-dependent bandwidth. The Intel part uses a 8192-bit bus, which is the widest memory interface in this comparison, and its 10 nm process node from Intel Foundry accommodates 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s further underscores the Intel card’s dominance in fill-rate-heavy workloads. The Max 1100 also carries 56 ray tracing cores and 7168 shading units, making it suitable for compute-heavy rendering tasks, though its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, indicating it is not designed for traditional rasterization output.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these two products serve entirely different markets, and the choice between them depends on the workload context. For anyone building or using a portable device, the AMD Radeon 840M is the only viable option in this pairing. Its 15 W TDP, integrated form factor, and lack of external power requirements make it suitable for systems where the Intel Max 1100’s 300 W TDP and dual-slot cooler would be impossible to accommodate. The 840M’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 also positions it for consumer gaming and general-purpose graphics on the move.

For data center operators or researchers running compute-intensive tasks, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the clear pick. The 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 48 GB of HBM2e memory, and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth are figures that the 840M cannot approach. The Max 1100’s PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and 1x 12-pin power connector reflect its server-orientated design, and its 267 mm length requires a chassis that can house a dual-slot accelerator. The Intel part also lists a suggested PSU of 700 W, which is an explicit requirement that the 840M does not need. The absence of display outputs on the Max 1100 confirms that it is meant for headless compute, not interactive graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results for this pairing, so there are no measured scores to compare directly. However, the specification deltas provide a quantitative basis for understanding the performance gap. The most significant difference is in FP32 compute: the Intel Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS, which is 14.97 times higher than the AMD 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS. This ratio translates directly to workloads like scientific simulation, AI inference, or high-performance computing, where floating-point throughput is the primary driver.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The Max 1100’s 1.23 TB/s is a fixed hardware specification, while the 840M’s bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it fluctuates with the host laptop’s RAM configuration. In absolute terms, the Intel part’s 8192-bit bus width and HBM2e memory type are designed to feed its 7168 shading units at full speed. The texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s on the Max 1100 is 14.96 times the 840M’s 46.40 GTexel/s, again showing a near-identical ratio to the FP32 gap. The pixel rate, however, reverses this trend: the 840M outputs 23.20 GPixel/s, while the Max 1100 is recorded at 0 MPixel/s, indicating that the Intel card lacks dedicated ROPs (its ROP count is 0) and is not intended for framebuffer output.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Max 1100 runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1550 MHz, while the 840M starts at 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. The higher boost clock on the AMD part is a function of its simpler architecture and lower power draw, but it does not compensate for the Intel card’s massive advantage in shading units (7168 versus 256) and texture mapping units (448 versus 16). The ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 56 on the Intel side versus 4 on the AMD side.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS, which is 14.97 times higher than the AMD Radeon 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon 840M output to a display?

A: Yes, the 840M lists display outputs as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive screens in laptop or portable configurations. The Intel Max 1100 lists no display outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory with a 1.23 TB/s bandwidth and 8192-bit bus. The AMD 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU requires external power connectors?

A: The Intel Max 1100 requires a 1x 12-pin power connector and suggests a 700 W PSU. The AMD 840M uses none, operating entirely from the host system’s power delivery.

Q: How do the architectures differ?

A: The AMD 840M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, integrated as an IGP. The Intel Max 1100 uses Generation 12.5 architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, built as a discrete data center accelerator with 100,000 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Both support ray tracing. The AMD 840M has 4 RT cores, while the Intel Max 1100 has 56 RT cores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The AMD Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5, which is a graphics-first design optimized for power efficiency and consumer workloads. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, which is the smaller node in this comparison. The chip is named Krackan Point and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, indicating it is part of AMD’s integrated graphics lineup for mobile processors. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, which are modest numbers but appropriate for a 15 W part. Its 4 ray tracing cores support DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with modern gaming APIs.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, which is a purpose-built data center accelerator. Its architecture is Generation 12.5, and it is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, which is larger than AMD’s 4 nm node but accommodates a far more complex design. The die size is 1280 mm², and the transistor count is 100,000 million, resulting in a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The Max 1100 has 7168 shading units and 448 TMUs, but its ROP count is 0, and its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s. This indicates that the Intel part lacks the traditional rasterization pipeline found in consumer GPUs, instead focusing on compute and AI workloads. It has 56 ray tracing cores, but its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_1), and its Vulkan support is listed as null, suggesting that its software stack is optimized for compute frameworks rather than graphics APIs.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is thermal design power: the AMD 840M draws 15 W, while the Intel Max 1100 draws 300 W, a 20-fold increase. This drives nearly every other distinction. The 840M is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm in length (10.5 inches), with a 1x 12-pin power connector and a 700 W suggested PSU, using a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

Memory configuration differs completely. The 840M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, which means its performance scales with the host laptop’s RAM speed and channel count. The Max 1100 has fixed 48 GB of HBM2e memory, an 8192-bit bus, and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The memory clock on the Max 1100 is listed as 600 MHz, with 1200 Mbps effective, while the 840M’s memory clock is also system shared.

Clock speeds show the Intel card running at 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, while the AMD part runs at 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The 840M’s higher boost clock reflects its lighter workload and smaller number of active units. The process node differs: 4 nm TSMC for AMD versus 10 nm Intel for the Max 1100. The release dates also differ, with the Max 1100 launching on 2023-01-09 and the 840M on 2025-02-28. The Intel part lists a successor named H3C Graphics, while the AMD part lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP. The AMD 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no Vulkan entry. Both list OpenGL 4.6 support. Finally, the Intel Max 1100 has a production status of Active and the AMD 840M also shows Active, but their physical footprints could not be more different: one fits inside a laptop, the other requires a server chassis with a 700 W power supply.