AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, and the recorded data confirms that their intended use cases could not be more distinct. The RTX 4060 holds a clear performance advantage across all measured dimensions, but the 840M exists in a different product class entirely, designed for minimal power draw within an integrated graphics solution. The database shows that the RTX 4060 sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M rests at the 50th percentile, yet this comparison matters only when acknowledging the fundamental architectural and power envelope differences between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 wins every benchmark category where both are represented, but the margins are not uniform across all workloads. The most significant advantage appears in raw compute and modern API performance, where the discrete NVIDIA card demonstrates its full capabilities. In PassMark G3D, the RTX 4060 records a score of 19,545, while its GPU compute score reaches 9,213. These numbers indicate strong general 3D rendering and compute throughput, which is expected given its dedicated hardware resources and substantial power allocation.

The 840M wins by default in the efficiency category, though the database does not provide direct comparative efficiency metrics. With a TDP of 15 W versus 115 W for the RTX 4060, the integrated AMD solution draws considerably less power. This makes it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where sustained battery operation matters more than peak performance. The 840M also wins on integration simplicity, as it requires no power connectors, uses system shared memory, and occupies no expansion slot. The RTX 4060, by contrast, requires a dual-slot footprint, a 12-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W power supply.

For workloads that depend on dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, the RTX 4060 clearly dominates. It features 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, versus 4 RT cores and no tensor cores on the 840M. The data indicates that the RTX 4060 delivers 24 RT cores capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the 840M's 4 RT cores provide only basic ray tracing functionality. Similarly, the 96 tensor cores on the NVIDIA part enable AI-accelerated features that the AMD integrated graphics cannot match.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different design philosophies. The 840M uses AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built as part of the Krackan Point chip within the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RTX 4060 employs NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, using the AD107 chip in the GeForce 40-series generation. The process node difference is minimal, but the chip scale differs dramatically: the RTX 4060 contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die with a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The 840M's transistor count and die size are both listed as unknown in the database.

Memory architecture presents the starkest contrast. The 840M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration. The RTX 4060 features dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory with fixed bandwidth provides consistent performance regardless of system configuration, whereas the 840M's memory performance varies based on the portable device's memory subsystem.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The 840M packs 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The RTX 4060 delivers 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This 12x difference in shading units explains the massive performance gap in pixel and texture throughput. The RTX 4060 achieves 118.1 GPixel/s and 236.2 GTexel/s, while the 840M manages 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern, with the RTX 4060 delivering 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the 840M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not include direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two GPUs, but the RTX 4060's benchmark suite provides sufficient data for analysis. In PassMark DirectX 9, the RTX 4060 scores 236, while DirectX 10 brings 103 and DirectX 11 reaches 175. DirectX 12 performance drops to 76 in PassMark, though this figure appears counterintuitive given the card's architecture. The DirectX 9 score of 236 versus DirectX 12's 76 suggests that legacy API performance is stronger in relative terms, though all scores confirm the card handles these workloads adequately.

Geekbench results for the RTX 4060 show OpenCL at 95,057 and Vulkan at 48,643. These cross-platform compute scores indicate strong general-purpose GPU acceleration. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records 2,302 points, providing a modern gaming workload reference. PassMark G2D scores 1,037, reflecting 2D desktop performance. The average benchmark score across all tests reaches 17,639, placing the RTX 4060 close to the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666, a 0.2% difference) and just ahead of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, a 0.3% advantage). The RTX 4060 also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, 0.5%) and Pro 460 (17,509, 0.7%).

The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its performance characteristics must be inferred from its architectural specifications and percentile ranking. Its 50th percentile placement among all GPUs suggests mid-pack performance, but this ranking likely reflects its efficiency-oriented design rather than raw compute capability. The 4 nm process and RDNA 3.5 architecture indicate modern feature support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the RTX 4060's API support exactly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 4060 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), compared to the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, making the NVIDIA card roughly ten times faster in raw floating-point throughput.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The 840M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RTX 4060 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 272.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The 840M has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, while the RTX 4060 has a TDP of 115 W, needs a 12-pin power connector, and requires a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the RTX 4060's closest competitor in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 7790 scores 17,666, a 0.2% difference from the RTX 4060's average of 17,639, making it the nearest rival. The AMD Radeon 780M follows at 17,588 with a 0.3% difference.

Q: How many ray tracing cores does each GPU have?

A: The RTX 4060 has 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, while the 840M has 4 RT cores and no tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: these GPUs serve entirely different purposes, and direct performance comparison misleads without considering their design contexts. The RTX 4060 is a dedicated discrete graphics card for desktop systems, requiring substantial power and physical space. Its 61st percentile ranking, 17,639 average benchmark score, and 3,072 shading units position it as a capable mid-range discrete solution. The 840M, as an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, targets portable devices where power efficiency takes precedence over absolute performance.

Users requiring consistent gaming performance, hardware ray tracing, AI acceleration through tensor cores, and dedicated high-bandwidth memory should select the RTX 4060. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory at 272.0 GB/s and 24 RT cores provide capabilities that the 840M cannot approach. The RTX 4060's production status is end-of-life, with the GeForce 50-series as its successor, but its recorded performance remains valid for comparison.

Users prioritizing battery life, compact form factors, and simple integration should choose the 840M. Its 15 W power draw, IGP slot width, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable devices. The system shared memory approach reduces component count and cost, though performance varies with the host system's memory configuration. The 840M remains in active production with a 2025 release date, suggesting ongoing relevance in the mobile market.

The benchmark data shows no performance overlap between these products. The RTX 4060 wins every measurable category by substantial margins, from pixel rate (118.1 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s) to texture rate (236.2 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s) to shading units (3,072 versus 256). Neither product fails in its intended role, but the database makes clear that they target mutually exclusive market segments.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Process Node: 4 nm (840M) versus 5 nm (RTX 4060)
• Transistors: Unknown (840M) versus 18,900 million (RTX 4060)
• Die Size: Unknown (840M) versus 159 mm² (RTX 4060)
• Transistor Density: Not applicable (840M) versus 118.9M / mm² (RTX 4060)
• Base Clock: 400 MHz (840M) versus 1830 MHz (RTX 4060)
• Boost Clock: 2900 MHz (840M) versus 2460 MHz (RTX 4060)
• Memory Size: System Shared (840M) versus 8 GB (RTX 4060)
• Memory Type: System Shared (840M) versus GDDR6 (RTX 4060)
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared (840M) versus 128 bit (RTX 4060)
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent (840M) versus 272.0 GB/s (RTX 4060)
• Shading Units: 256 (840M) versus 3072 (RTX 4060)
• TMUs: 16 (840M) versus 96 (RTX 4060)
• ROPs: 8 (840M) versus 48 (RTX 4060)
• RT Cores: 4 (840M) versus 24 (RTX 4060)
• Tensor Cores: Not applicable (840M) versus 96 (RTX 4060)
• Pixel Rate: 23.20 GPixel/s (840M) versus 118.1 GPixel/s (RTX 4060)
• Texture Rate: 46.40 GTexel/s (840M) versus 236.2 GTexel/s (RTX 4060)
• FP32 Performance: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (840M) versus 15.11 TFLOPS (RTX 4060)
• TDP: 15 W (840M) versus 115 W (RTX 4060)
• Slot Width: IGP (840M) versus Dual-slot (RTX 4060)
• Power Connectors: None (840M) versus 1x 12-pin (RTX 4060)
• Suggested PSU: Not applicable (840M) versus 300 W (RTX 4060)
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent (840M) versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a (RTX 4060)
• Dimensions: Not specified (840M) versus 240 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width (RTX 4060)
• Production Status: Active (840M) versus End-of-life (RTX 4060)
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 (840M) versus 2023-05-17 (RTX 4060)
• Launch MSRP: Not provided (840M) versus 299 USD (RTX 4060)