AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 840M contains no benchmark scores, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has a full set of eight recorded tests. This asymmetry means the comparison is one-sided: only the NVIDIA part has measurable results in the database. The RTX 3050 A Mobile posts an average benchmark score of 8746, which places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. In contrast, the Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile, but that percentile is derived from an average score of 0, indicating that no direct performance measurements have been recorded for the AMD part.

Looking at the NVIDIA results in isolation, the GeForce benchmark suite shows a PassMark G3D score of 11664, which is the strongest single metric in its recorded set. The compute-oriented PassMark GPU Compute test returns 4419, while the older DirectX 9 path scores 152, DirectX 11 scores 94, and DirectX 10 scores 61. The DirectX 12 result drops to 55, and the 2D graphics test returns 526. The GeekBench OpenCL score reaches 52998, a figure that reflects the GPU's compute throughput in a cross-platform workload.

The nearest rivals for the RTX 3050 A Mobile provide context for its average score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 posts an average score of 8743, which is essentially identical, with a delta of 0 percent. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8686, putting the RTX 3050 A Mobile 0.7 percent ahead. Two AMD parts trail slightly: the Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851, meaning the RTX 3050 A Mobile is 1.2 percent behind it, and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8863, placing the RTX 3050 A Mobile 1.3 percent behind. These deltas are all within a narrow band, suggesting the RTX 3050 A Mobile performs in a tight cluster with these older workstation and midrange parts.

Because the Radeon 840M has no recorded scores, head-to-head wins cannot be assigned. The database shows zero wins for each side in the head-to-head benchmark field. The practical implication is that any comparison of raw performance between these two mobile GPUs must rely on architectural and specification differences rather than direct measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation and is based on the Krackan Point chip. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with the GA106 chip and a transistor count of 12,000 million on a 276 mm² die. The transistor density for the NVIDIA part is 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter; the AMD part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

The NVIDIA GPU packs far more execution resources. It has 1792 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In terms of ray tracing, the NVIDIA part carries 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores, while the AMD part has 4 RT cores and no tensor cores listed. This difference in tensor core presence is significant for any workload that relies on AI acceleration, such as DLSS-style features, though the database does not record specific feature support beyond API levels.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 A Mobile has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1343 MHz, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz or 12 Gbps effective. Despite the AMD part's much higher boost clock, its smaller execution resource count limits its theoretical throughput. The pixel rate for the AMD part is 23.20 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part achieves 42.98 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 46.40 GTexel/s for AMD and 75.21 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is listed at 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the AMD part versus 4.813 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a factor of roughly 3.2 in favor of NVIDIA.

Memory is a major divergence. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory, with the size, type, and bus width all listed as system dependent, and bandwidth dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 A Mobile has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. This dedicated memory allocation removes the variable of system RAM performance and ensures consistent memory bandwidth for the GPU workload.

Both parts use the PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The TDP differs: the AMD part is rated at 15 W, while the NVIDIA part is rated at 45 W. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system.

Q: How do the compute throughput figures compare?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has higher pixel and texture rates: 42.98 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and 75.21 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same process node generation?

A: No. The Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Q: Which GPU has a ray tracing advantage?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 14 RT cores, while the Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 56 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is listed as Active, with a release date of 2025-02-28. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 A Mobile is listed as End-of-life, with a release date of 2023-12-31.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 4 nm for AMD versus 8 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor count is unknown for AMD versus 12,000 million for NVIDIA, and the die size is unknown for AMD versus 276 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is not listed for AMD but is 43.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: AMD has a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost; NVIDIA has a 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. Memory clocks are system shared for AMD versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory size is system shared for AMD versus 4 GB for NVIDIA; memory type is system shared versus GDDR6; bus width is system shared versus 128 bit; bandwidth is system dependent versus 192.0 GB/s.

Execution resources: shading units are 256 versus 1792, TMUs are 16 versus 56, ROPs are 8 versus 32, RT cores are 4 versus 14, and tensor cores are absent versus 56. Pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS. TDP is 15 W versus 45 W. The AMD part uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the NVIDIA part uses GA106 with Ampere architecture.

Both share the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, IGP slot width, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status is Active for AMD versus End-of-life for NVIDIA, with release dates of 2025-02-28 versus 2023-12-31.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear separation in capability, though the absence of recorded benchmarks for the AMD part requires careful interpretation. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a substantial resource advantage: 7 times more shading units, 3.5 times more TMUs, 4 times more ROPs, and 3.5 times more RT cores. Its FP32 throughput is roughly 3.2 times higher, and it has dedicated GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth instead of relying on system-shared memory.

The Radeon 840M counters with a much smaller power envelope at 15 W versus 45 W, a newer 4 nm process, and a significantly higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 1343 MHz. These attributes suggest the AMD part is designed for efficiency and integration into low-power systems, while the NVIDIA part targets higher sustained performance at the cost of more power draw.

The percentile placement is notable: the Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile despite having no recorded scores, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile sits at the 44th percentile with an average score of 8746. This discrepancy likely reflects the population of GPUs in the database rather than actual performance equivalence. The nearest rival data for the RTX 3050 A Mobile shows it trading blows with the GTX 460 v2, Quadro P2200, Radeon R9 M265X, and Radeon Pro WX 5100, all within a 1.3 percent delta. No such context exists for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins on raw compute metrics across every recorded category. Its higher FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate indicate stronger performance in rendering and compute-heavy tasks. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth removes memory bandwidth variability, which benefits workloads that stress memory throughput. The presence of 56 tensor cores gives it an advantage in AI-accelerated features, and its 14 RT cores provide more ray tracing capability than the AMD part's 4.

The Radeon 840M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the NVIDIA part's 45 W, making it suited for thin-and-light portable devices where power draw is constrained. The 4 nm process and RDNA 3.5 architecture suggest a modern design that leverages a high boost clock of 2900 MHz to extract performance from a small execution resource pool. Its system-shared memory approach means it does not require dedicated VRAM, which can reduce system cost and complexity in an integrated design.

For users who prioritize raw performance in gaming or compute workloads, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the only part with recorded benchmark data, and that data shows it performing in the same class as older midrange discrete GPUs. For users who prioritize low power consumption and a modern integrated solution, the Radeon 840M offers a newer architecture with a much lower power draw, though its actual performance is not yet recorded in the database. The choice between the two hinges on whether the workload demands dedicated memory and higher compute throughput, or whether efficiency and integration take precedence.