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

The AMD Radeon 840M and the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem occupy opposite ends of the graphics hardware spectrum, yet the recorded data places both at the 50th percentile when measured against all GPUs in the database. This single point of similarity masks a fundamental divergence in purpose, architecture, and physical scale. The Radeon 840M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor from the Krackan Point chip, built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part is a 2400 W dual-slot accelerator with 128 GB of HBM2e memory, a 1280 mm² die, and 100,000 million transistors. The following analysis uses only the recorded data to separate where each design wins, how the architectures differ, and what the head-to-head numbers show.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in scenarios defined by low power and system integration. Its thermal design power is 15 W, and it uses system-shared memory with a bus width described as system-shared and bandwidth labeled system dependent. This makes the 840M suitable for portable devices, as its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 46.40 GTexel/s are modest figures, but they come from a chip that requires no power connectors and occupies no expansion slot, as it is an IGP. The 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which positions it for modern gaming APIs within a constrained power envelope. The boost clock reaches 2900 MHz from a 400 MHz base, indicating a design that can scale upward when thermal headroom exists.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its fp32 compute is 52.43 TFLOPS, and its fp16 compute is also 52.43 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Memory totals 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.21 TB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz, and memory runs at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective. This part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and requires a 2800 W suggested power supply, drawing power through a single 16-pin connector. It has no display outputs, confirming it is not intended for direct visual output but for compute workloads in data center environments. The dual-slot form factor and 267 mm length (10.5 inches) indicate a physical footprint far beyond the integrated 840M.

The wins are therefore clear. The 840M wins where power draw, physical footprint, and display connectivity matter. The Intel Max Subsystem wins where absolute compute, memory bandwidth, and capacity dominate. The 840M is active in production with a release date of February 28, 2025, while the Intel part is also active, released January 9, 2023, with a successor listed as H3C Graphics.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, specifically from the Navi III IGP generation under the Krackan Point chip. The process node is 4 nm from TSMC. Transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no comparison can be made on those figures. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 raster output pipelines, and 4 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores recorded. The fp32 and fp16 figures are identical at 1,484.8 GFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The memory subsystem is entirely system shared, meaning the GPU accesses main system memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8. The base clock is 400 MHz, boost is 2900 MHz. The pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s. The slot width is listed as IGP, power connectors are none, and the display outputs are portable device dependent. This is a design for minimal power consumption and maximum integration into a mobile or compact platform.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Generation 12.5 architecture, also known as Ponte Vecchio. The process node is 10 nm from Intel. The die size is 1280 mm², and the transistor count is 100,000 million, yielding a transistor density of 78.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The shading units number 16,384, with 1,024 texture mapping units and 0 raster output pipelines. Ray tracing cores are 128. There are no tensor cores listed. The fp32 compute is 52.43 TFLOPS, and fp16 is 52.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The memory is 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s. The base clock is 900 MHz, boost is 1600 MHz, and memory operates at 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, which aligns with the absence of display outputs. The texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s. The TDP is 2400 W, slot width is dual-slot, and power connectors are one 16-pin. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16. The suggested power supply is 2800 W. This is a data center accelerator built for throughput, not for rasterization or display.

The architectural differences are stark. The 840M uses a modern 4 nm process but has no dedicated memory, relying on system shared bandwidth that is system dependent. The Intel part uses an older 10 nm process but packs 100,000 million transistors into a 1280 mm² die, a density of 78.1M per mm². The shading unit count differs by a factor of 64 (256 vs 16,384). The texture mapping units differ by a factor of 64 (16 vs 1,024). The ray tracing cores differ by a factor of 32 (4 vs 128). The 840M has 8 ROPs while the Intel part has 0, reflecting the Intel accelerator's lack of traditional rasterization output. The API support also differs: the 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. The Intel part has a successor, H3C Graphics, while the 840M's predecessor is Navi II IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two parts, and the wins counter shows 0 for both sides. However, the recorded compute and memory figures allow direct comparison on several axes.

Compute throughput is the largest gap. The Intel Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of fp32 compute, while the AMD 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is 1.4848 TFLOPS. Converting to a ratio, the Intel part offers approximately 35.3 times the fp32 throughput of the 840M. The fp16 figures are identical to the fp32 figures for both parts, so the same ratio holds for half-precision work. This is a decisive win for the Intel accelerator in any compute-bound workload.

Texture rate shows a similar disparity. The Intel part reaches 1,638.4 GTexel/s, while the AMD 840M reaches 46.40 GTexel/s. The Intel part is roughly 35.3 times faster in texture processing as well. The pixel rate is a different story. The AMD 840M produces 23.20 GPixel/s, while the Intel part produces 0 MPixel/s. This means the Intel accelerator cannot rasterize pixels at all, while the 840M can output a full pixel stream. For any workload that requires traditional display or rasterization, the 840M is the only option between the two.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the Intel part overwhelmingly. The Intel Max Subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus. The AMD 840M has system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. No exact figure exists for the 840M's bandwidth, so a numeric comparison is not possible, but the Intel part's 3.21 TB/s is a fixed, massive figure. The 840M's bandwidth will vary by platform and system memory configuration, but it cannot approach 3.21 TB/s under any realistic scenario given its 15 W TDP and integrated nature.

Clock speeds show a different winner. The AMD 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Intel part boosts to 1600 MHz. The 840M also has a lower base clock of 400 MHz versus 900 MHz for the Intel part. The higher boost clock on the 840M indicates a design capable of frequency scaling within its power budget, but the absolute compute advantage of the Intel part makes clock speed comparisons secondary.

The process node favors AMD. The 840M uses 4 nm TSMC, while the Intel part uses 10 nm Intel. This does not translate into a performance win for the 840M, but it does indicate a newer manufacturing technology. The Intel part compensates with a massive die and transistor count: 100,000 million transistors on 1280 mm², yielding a density of 78.1M per mm². The 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown, so no density comparison is possible.

Power consumption is the final major comparison. The AMD 840M uses 15 W, while the Intel Max Subsystem uses 2400 W. The Intel part requires a 2800 W suggested power supply and a single 16-pin connector. The 840M has no power connectors and is an IGP. The power difference is a factor of 160. This means the Intel part delivers its compute at a far higher power cost, while the 840M operates within a mobile-class budget.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher fp32 compute?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 52.43 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part is approximately 35.3 times higher.

Q: Can the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem output to a display?

A: No. The Intel part has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The AMD Radeon 840M has portable device dependent display outputs and a pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent or shared. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 128 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has a 2400 W TDP, uses one 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 2800 W.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses 4 nm from TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses 10 nm from Intel.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 16,384 shading units. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M was released on February 28, 2025. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem was released on January 9, 2023.

The Verdict

The data defines two distinct use cases without overlap. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated processor from the Krackan Point chip, built on 4 nm TSMC, with a 15 W TDP, system-shared memory, and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. Its pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 46.40 GTexel/s, combined with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support, make it suitable for portable devices requiring display output and modest 3D acceleration. The 840M has no dedicated memory, so its bandwidth is system dependent, but its power and physical footprint are minimal. It is the only choice of the two for any workload that produces pixels.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a dual-slot accelerator with 128 GB of HBM2e, 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, 52.43 TFLOPS fp32, and 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate. It uses 2400 W, requires a 2800 W suggested power supply, and has no display outputs. Its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirms it cannot rasterize. Its 16,384 shading units and 128 ray tracing cores target compute-heavy data center tasks. The 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die represent a large, dense design, though on an older 10 nm Intel process. The successor is listed as H3C Graphics.

For a user requiring integrated graphics in a portable system, the 840M is the only viable part. For a data center deployment needing maximum fp32 or fp16 throughput and massive memory bandwidth, the Intel Max Subsystem is the clear choice. The former wins on power, process node, pixel output, and API modernity. The latter wins on compute, memory capacity, bandwidth, and texture processing. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, but that percentile masks the fact that they are not competitors. They serve different markets entirely, and the recorded data supports no crossover scenario where one could substitute for the other.