AMD Radeon 840M vs Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 840M against the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile. Both entries show an empty benchmark array, zero wins for each side, and no nearest rival data. This absence of measured scores means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification fields available in the database.

The AMD Radeon 840M lists a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile boosts to 1450 MHz. The AMD part operates at double the boost frequency, which directly influences its pixel and texture throughput. The Radeon 840M records 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.40 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel part records 29.00 GPixel/s and 58.00 GTexel/s. Despite the lower clock, Intel achieves higher pixel and texture rates because it has more texture mapping units (40 vs 16) and more render output units (20 vs 8).

The raw FP32 compute figures tell a different story. The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while the Intel Iris Xe delivers 1.856 TFLOPS, which converts to 1,856 GFLOPS. Intel holds a 371.2 GFLOPS advantage in single-precision compute. In FP16, Intel lists 3.712 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while AMD lists 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Intel's FP16 output is more than double AMD's, giving it a clear edge in workloads that use reduced precision.

The shading unit counts differ substantially. Intel's 80EU configuration carries 640 shading units, while AMD's Radeon 840M has 256 shading units. Intel also leads in TMUs (40 vs 16) and ROPs (20 vs 8). However, AMD's boost clock advantage of 2900 MHz versus 1450 MHz narrows the throughput gap in some operations. The database shows no benchmark scores to verify real-world performance, so these figures represent theoretical maxima only.

The absence of head-to-head data means the percentile fields for both GPUs remain at 50, indicating a median position across all GPUs in the database. Without measured wins, neither part can be declared superior based on direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile boosts to 1450 MHz. AMD's boost clock is exactly double Intel's.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has 640 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units. Intel holds a 384-unit advantage in this category.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile records 29.00 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon 840M records 23.20 GPixel/s. Intel produces 5.80 GPixel/s more output per second.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 840M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the FP32 compute output for each?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile delivers 1.856 TFLOPS, which is 1,856 GFLOPS. Intel leads by 371.2 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its chip is codenamed Krackan Point, and it uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile belongs to Generation 12.2 architecture, under the HD Graphics-M generation for Raptor Lake. Intel fabricates this chip on a 10 nm process at its own foundry. The difference in process node gives AMD a density advantage in theory, though the database lists transistor counts as unknown for AMD and null for Intel.

AMD's architecture includes 4 ray tracing cores, while Intel lists no ray tracing cores in its entry. This makes the Radeon 840M the only one of the two with dedicated hardware for ray-traced workloads. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 feature level includes ray tracing and mesh shaders, aligning with the presence of AMD's RT cores.

Both GPUs use system-shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM. The bus interfaces differ: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. This affects how each GPU communicates with the host system, though the database does not provide measured transfer rates.

The FP16 ratio differs significantly. AMD lists FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. Intel lists FP16 at 3.712 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. Intel's architecture processes half-precision at twice the rate of single-precision, while AMD processes both at the same rate. This suggests Intel's design targets workloads that benefit from reduced precision, while AMD's design maintains uniform throughput.

The production status for both is Active. AMD's release date is 2025-02-28, while Intel's is 2023-01-03. Intel's part has a successor listed as Arc Graphics-M, while AMD lists no successor. AMD's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while Intel lists no predecessor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Intel leads in all three categories.

Clock speeds show AMD leading. The AMD base clock is 400 MHz versus Intel's 300 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 2900 MHz versus Intel's 1450 MHz.

Pixel and texture rates favor Intel. AMD records 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. Intel records 29.00 GPixel/s and 58.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute favors Intel. AMD records 1,484.8 GFLOPS, while Intel records 1.856 TFLOPS. FP16 also favors Intel: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 3.712 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

The process nodes differ: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm from Intel. Ray tracing cores exist only on AMD, with 4 RT cores listed. Intel lists null for RT cores.

The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses Ring Bus.

DirectX support differs: AMD supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), Intel supports 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power connectors: AMD lists None, while Intel lists null. Both are IGP slot width with 15 W TDP. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

Release dates differ: AMD released 2025-02-28, Intel released 2023-01-03. Production status is Active for both. AMD's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while Intel has no predecessor. Intel's successor is Arc Graphics-M, while AMD has no successor.

Transistor count is unknown for AMD and null for Intel. Die size is unknown for AMD and null for Intel. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The database contains no measured benchmark results for either GPU. Both carry a percentile of 50 against all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head arrays are empty, and the wins counters show zero for each side. Without recorded performance data, the verdict must be drawn strictly from the specification fields.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile holds the advantage in raw compute resources. It has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, compared to AMD's 256, 16, and 8. It also leads in FP32 (1.856 TFLOPS vs 1,484.8 GFLOPS) and FP16 (3.712 TFLOPS vs 1,484.8 GFLOPS). Its pixel rate (29.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (58.00 GTexel/s) exceed AMD's figures.

The AMD Radeon 840M counters with a much higher boost clock (2900 MHz vs 1450 MHz) and a more advanced process node (4 nm vs 10 nm). It also includes 4 ray tracing cores, which Intel lacks entirely. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while Intel only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

For users prioritizing compute throughput, texture work, or pixel fill, the data points to Intel. For users needing ray tracing support, a newer process node, or the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, the data points to AMD. The lack of benchmark scores prevents any claim about actual frame rates or real-world gaming performance. The database records only theoretical specifications, and the verdict must respect that limitation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile wins in raw shading capacity. With 640 shading units against AMD's 256, Intel offers more parallel execution lanes for general compute. Its 40 TMUs versus AMD's 16 give it a clear advantage in texture-heavy workloads. Its 20 ROPs versus AMD's 8 provide higher pixel output capability. The FP32 figure of 1.856 TFLOPS exceeds AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, making Intel the stronger choice for single-precision math tasks.

Intel also wins in FP16 throughput. The 3.712 TFLOPS figure, achieved with a 2:1 ratio, more than doubles AMD's 1,484.8 GFLOPS at 1:1. Applications that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference paths, would favor Intel based on this data.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in clock speed. A boost of 2900 MHz versus 1450 MHz gives AMD a frequency advantage that can offset some of Intel's resource lead in latency-sensitive or clock-bound operations. The 4 nm process node from TSMC suggests lower power draw per transistor compared to Intel's 10 nm, though the database does not provide measured power consumption.

AMD wins in ray tracing capability. The presence of 4 RT cores gives it dedicated hardware for ray-traced rendering, while Intel lists none. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support on AMD enables features like ray tracing and mesh shaders at the API level, which Intel's DirectX 12 (12_1) cannot match.

AMD also holds the release date advantage for newer technology. The 2025-02-28 release date versus Intel's 2023-01-03 indicates AMD's part is newer by over two years. Intel's successor, Arc Graphics-M, is listed in the database, suggesting the Iris Xe line has been superseded. AMD lists no successor, indicating its Radeon 840M is the current offering.

The bus interface differs, with AMD using PCIe 4.0 x8 and Intel using Ring Bus. PCIe connectivity provides a standardized external link, while Ring Bus is an internal fabric. The database does not provide performance data to determine which delivers better system integration.

In summary, Intel wins in resource counts and throughput rates. AMD wins in clock speed, process technology, ray tracing, API feature level, and release recency. Users choosing based on compute density would select Intel. Users choosing based on modern features and hardware acceleration for ray tracing would select AMD.