AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two mobile graphics solutions that occupy completely different segments of the laptop market. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor built for thin-and-light notebooks, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q is a high-end discrete mobile GPU for premium gaming and creator laptops. Benchmark results show the RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS FP32 compute against the Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 19 times the raw throughput. The RTX 4090 Max-Q also has 9,728 shading units versus 256, 304 texture mapping units versus 16, and 112 ROPs versus 8. The RTX 4090 Max-Q carries 304 tensor cores and 76 RT cores, while the Radeon 840M has only 4 RT cores and no tensor cores. Pixel rate stands at 163.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 23.20 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate reaches 442.3 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part draws 80 W TDP versus 15 W for the AMD IGP. Buyers seeking maximum frame rates and ray tracing performance in a laptop should select the RTX 4090 Max-Q. The Radeon 840M suits ultraportable systems where power draw is the primary constraint, though the data shows it cannot compete in raw graphics throughput.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process node, with the Krackan Point chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q employs Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, using the AD103 chip. The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database. The NVIDIA chip has 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores, supporting hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration. The AMD part has only 4 RT cores and no tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4090 Max-Q runs at a base clock of 930 MHz with a boost of 1455 MHz. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz, a higher boost frequency that partially compensates for its fewer execution units. The Radeon 840M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the RTX 4090 Max-Q also has no power connectors listed, though its 80 W TDP is substantially higher than the 15 W TDP of the AMD part. The NVIDIA GPU uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface; the AMD IGP uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RTX 4090 Max-Q was released on 2023-01-02, while the Radeon 840M appeared on 2025-02-28. The NVIDIA part succeeds GeForce 30 Mobile and was succeeded by GeForce 50 Mobile. The AMD part succeeds Navi II IGP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q delivers 28.31 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 840M provides 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 19 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: What are the TDP requirements?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q has an 80 W TDP. The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for low-power integrated designs.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, but the RTX 4090 Max-Q has 76 RT cores. The Radeon 840M has only 4 RT cores, indicating significantly weaker ray tracing throughput.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q contains 45,900 million transistors. The Radeon 840M's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 4090 Max-Q achieves 163.0 GPixel/s. The Radeon 840M reaches 23.20 GPixel/s, about 7 times lower.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Max-Q |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Chip | Krackan Point | AD103 |

| Transistors | unknown | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 379 mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 9,728 |

| TMUs | 16 | 304 |

| ROPs | 8 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 4 | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 163.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 442.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 28.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 28.31 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 80 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-01-02 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | null | GeForce 50 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and the wins counter shows zero for both sides. However, the specification data allows direct comparison of theoretical throughput metrics. The RTX 4090 Max-Q dominates every measurable compute category. FP32 performance stands at 28.31 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS, meaning the NVIDIA part processes roughly 19 times more floating-point operations per second. FP16 performance follows the same ratio, with both GPUs running FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. Texture fill rate shows the RTX 4090 Max-Q at 442.3 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a factor of about 9.5. Pixel fill rate reaches 163.0 GPixel/s against 23.20 GPixel/s, a factor of about 7. The RTX 4090 Max-Q has 304 texture mapping units versus 16, a 19-fold increase, and 112 ROPs versus 8, a 14-fold increase. Shading unit count jumps from 256 to 9,728, a 38-fold difference. The RT core count rises from 4 to 76, and tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA side with 304 units. Memory bandwidth differs enormously: 576.0 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth versus system dependent shared memory. The RTX 4090 Max-Q also uses a wider PCIe interface at x16 versus x8. Clock speeds are the only area where the AMD part shows an advantage: the Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, substantially above the RTX 4090 Max-Q's 1455 MHz boost. The AMD base clock of 400 MHz is lower than NVIDIA's 930 MHz, but the higher boost suggests the integrated part can scale frequency aggressively when power allows. The RTX 4090 Max-Q compensates with vastly more execution units, achieving higher absolute throughput despite lower clocks. Process node differences show AMD using a smaller 4 nm process versus NVIDIA's 5 nm, both from TSMC. The RTX 4090 Max-Q's 45,900 million transistors on 379 mm² yields a density of 121.1M per mm². The Radeon 840M's die size and transistor count remain unknown, preventing density comparison. Both GPUs list as Active in production status. The NVIDIA part has a defined predecessor and successor in the database, while the AMD part lists only a predecessor. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs for both are portable device dependent. Neither has slot width beyond the IGP designation, and both lack power connectors. The RTX 4090 Max-Q consumes 80 W TDP, over five times the 15 W TDP of the Radeon 840M, making the AMD IGP far more suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs. The 15 W figure allows placement in ultraportables, while the 80 W TDP requires active cooling and larger chassis. The RTX 4090 Max-Q's release date of 2023-01-02 places it two years before the Radeon 840M's 2025-02-28 launch, though both remain active in production. The database percentile for both GPUs stands at 50, indicating median placement among all recorded GPUs, though the average benchmark score for both is zero, meaning no concrete runtime benchmarks exist in the database for either part. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both, so no direct comparative scores against other GPUs are available. The data confirms the RTX 4090 Max-Q as the overwhelmingly faster part in every specification category except boost clock and power efficiency, where the Radeon 840M's lower TDP and higher boost frequency give it a niche advantage for low-power systems.