AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon 840M or the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. This absence of measured data means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification fields provided in the database.

What the data does show is a substantial disparity in raw compute capabilities. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile manages 384.0 GFLOPS. That places the AMD part at roughly 3.87 times the single-precision throughput of the Intel solution. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: the Radeon 840M achieves 46.40 GTexel/s against the Intel part's 12.00 GTexel/s, a 3.87x advantage. Pixel rate tells a steeper story, with the AMD IGP reaching 23.20 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s for the Intel graphics, a 5.8x gap.

Clock speeds contribute heavily to these differences. The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile tops out at 1000 MHz. Base clocks also differ: 400 MHz for the AMD chip versus 300 MHz for Intel. Even accounting for the Intel part's lower shading unit count of 192 versus 256, the clock advantage compounds the core-count advantage.

The FP16 comparison introduces a nuance. The AMD Radeon 840M records 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain extra throughput from reduced precision. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile records 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. In raw FP16 terms, Intel reaches half of AMD's FP16 output, a closer margin than any other compute metric. That suggests Intel's architecture prioritizes half-precision workloads, though it still trails.

Both products sit at the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU ranking, which indicates the percentile field reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than measured performance tiers. Without actual scores, no win count can be assigned. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, confirming no recorded victories in either direction.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the AMD Radeon 840M is the stronger computational part on paper. Every measured throughput metric favors AMD: FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate. The clock speed advantage (2900 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz boost) and the larger execution resource pool (256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs versus 192, 12, and 4 respectively) create a consistent margin.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile does hold one meaningful advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is listed at 6 W, while the AMD part draws 15 W. That 9 W difference could matter in thermally constrained or battery-focused designs, but the database does not provide battery life or sustained performance measurements to quantify the impact.

The Radeon 840M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD GPU includes 4 ray tracing cores; the Intel GPU lists none. For applications that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features or ray tracing, the AMD part is the only option of the two.

The Intel part's FP16 2:1 ratio is its sole computational bright spot. For workloads that operate in half precision and are bound by FP16 throughput, the Intel GPU closes the gap to a 2x deficit rather than a 3.87x deficit. Still, that remains a clear disadvantage.

No measured benchmark scores exist, so these conclusions rest on specification-derived throughput and feature support. The architecture differences below further explain why the AMD part dominates the spec sheet.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses Xe-LP architecture on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The process node gap is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm. Smaller geometry typically enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, and the clock data supports that: AMD's boost of 2900 MHz far exceeds Intel's 1000 MHz.

The AMD chip is designated Krackan Point, part of the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile). The Intel chip is Twin Lake, part of the HD Graphics-T generation. These are different product families targeting different system designs. Both are IGPs with system-shared memory, and both use portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Ray tracing support is exclusive to the AMD side. The Radeon 840M lists 4 RT cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile lists no RT cores at all. This is a categorical feature difference, not just a performance gap. Any workload that requires hardware-accelerated ray tracing will not run on the Intel part.

The DirectX feature level differs as well. The AMD GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature tier. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 identically.

The FP16 execution ratio difference points to divergent design philosophies. AMD runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, suggesting its RDNA 3.5 shaders treat half precision as a passthrough mode. Intel's Xe-LP runs FP16 at 2:1, doubling throughput, which indicates dedicated half-precision paths. This makes the Intel architecture relatively more competitive in FP16-heavy workloads, even though it still loses in absolute terms.

The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. The database does not provide bandwidth numbers for either, so the performance impact cannot be quantified. The AMD interface suggests a discrete-GPU-style connection, while the Ring Bus indicates a tightly integrated SoC approach.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification field.

Process node: AMD uses 4 nm (TSMC), Intel uses 10 nm (Intel). Base clock: 400 MHz for AMD, 300 MHz for Intel. Boost clock: 2900 MHz for AMD, 1000 MHz for Intel. Shading units: 256 versus 192. Texture mapping units: 16 versus 12. Raster output units: 8 versus 4. Ray tracing cores: 4 versus none. Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 15 W versus 6 W. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus Ring Bus. Release date: 2025-02-28 for AMD, 2024-12-31 for Intel.

Fields that are identical: both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, both are IGP slot width, both have portable-device-dependent display outputs, both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, both are marked Active in production status, both have no launch MSRP recorded, and both have unknown transistor counts and die sizes. Neither lists a successor.

The release timing shows Intel's part launched earlier by roughly two months, but the database provides no performance data to assess whether that head start translated into any advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M. It delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP32 versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, a 3.87x advantage.

Q: Does the Intel part have any performance advantage?

A: The only metric where Intel narrows the gap is FP16. Intel records 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16:FP32 ratio, reaching half of AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP16 output.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 840M. It lists 4 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no RT cores listed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is rated at 6 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W TDP. Intel uses 9 W less.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz with a 400 MHz base clock. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile boosts to 1000 MHz with a 300 MHz base clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins every category where performance is the sole criterion. FP32 compute, FP16 compute, pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, clock speed, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing capability all favor the AMD part. The 5.8x pixel rate advantage (23.20 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s) suggests particularly strong performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high-resolution rendering. The 3.87x texture rate advantage (46.40 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s) indicates faster texture-heavy workloads. The 4 RT cores make it the only choice for hardware ray tracing.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins on power efficiency. Its 6 W TDP versus AMD's 15 W TDP means it draws 40% of the AMD part's power budget. For systems where thermal limits or battery capacity dominate design decisions, the Intel GPU presents a lower-power alternative. The FP16 2:1 ratio also gives it a relative efficiency story in half-precision workloads, though it still trails AMD in absolute FP16 throughput.

The process node difference (4 nm versus 10 nm) explains much of the clock speed gap, and the database shows AMD leveraging that advantage fully. The Intel part's Ring Bus interface versus AMD's PCIe 4.0 x8 suggests different integration philosophies, but without bandwidth data, no performance conclusion can be drawn.

For a user prioritizing maximum graphics capability in an integrated solution, the AMD Radeon 840M is the clear choice from the recorded data. For a user prioritizing minimum power draw and accepting lower throughput, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile fits that profile. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest on specification analysis alone, but the specification gaps are large enough to be decisive.