AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors by class and intent. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for thin, low-power notebooks, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is a discrete, dual-slot mobile GPU with a 130 W TDP. Benchmark results show the RTX 5050 holding the 66th percentile among all GPUs, while the 840M sits at the 50th percentile. The RTX 5050 has a recorded average benchmark score of 21,035, whereas the 840M has no benchmark scores in the database, indicating a lack of tested samples.

For a user choosing strictly from the recorded data, the RTX 5050 is the only option with measurable performance. It delivers an 8 GB GDDR6 memory subsystem with a 128-bit bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 840M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host laptop. The RTX 5050 also carries a launch MSRP of 249 USD. The 840M has no MSRP field, reflecting its role as an integrated solution sold within complete laptops.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 5050 is for users who need discrete graphics performance in a mobile workstation or gaming laptop. The 840M is for users who require a capable integrated GPU for everyday tasks in a low-power chassis. There is no benchmark overlap, so no scenario exists where the 840M competes directly on measured graphics speed.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different manufacturers, nodes, and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its chip is called Krackan Point. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the GB207 chip. The RTX 5050 has a recorded transistor count of 16,900 million on a 149 mm² die, with a transistor density of 113.4M per mm². The 840M has no listed transistor or die size data.

The RTX 5050 has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 10x difference in shader count, a 5x difference in TMUs, and a 4x difference in ROPs. The RTX 5050 also includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the 840M has 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor core field. The RTX 5050's massive shader and tensor core count reflects its discrete design with dedicated power and cooling.

The RTX 5050 uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 bus interface, while the 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RTX 5050 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The 840M is an IGP with no power connectors and a TDP of 15 W. The RTX 5050 has a TDP of 130 W, more than eight times higher. The RTX 5050 has dedicated display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b), while the 840M's outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050. The 840M has zero recorded benchmark scores across all tests. The RTX 5050 has ten recorded scores across multiple suites. Therefore, the comparison must rely on the RTX 5050's absolute scores and its position among its nearest rivals.

The RTX 5050's strongest recorded results include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,502, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 90,334, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 89,381. In Passmark tests, it scores 17,326 in G3D, 9,184 in GPU Compute, 1,113 in G2D, 186 in DirectX 9, 150 in DirectX 11, 103 in DirectX 10, and 66 in DirectX 12. The average benchmark score across all tests is 21,035.

The RTX 5050's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL with an average score of 21,153 and a delta of -0.6%, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M with 21,237 and -1%, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT with 20,713 and +1.6%, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile with 21,379 and -1.6%. The RTX 5050 sits within 1.6% of all four rivals, indicating a tightly clustered performance band around 21,000 points. The RTX 5050 is slightly ahead of the RX 5600 XT by 1.6%, but slightly behind the other three by margins of 0.6% to 1.6%.

The 840M has no scores to compare. Its percentile rank of 50 places it in the middle of all GPUs, but without recorded measurements, the database cannot validate any performance claim. The RTX 5050's percentile of 66 places it above the median, and its average score confirms a functional level of performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Krackan Point versus GB207
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus GeForce 50
• Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: unknown versus 16,900 million
• Die size: unknown versus 149 mm²
• Transistor density: not listed versus 113.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 400 MHz versus 2317 MHz
• Boost clock: 2900 MHz versus 2572 MHz
• Memory clock: system shared versus 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: system shared versus 8 GB
• Memory type: system shared versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: system shared versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: system dependent versus 320.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 2560
• TMUs: 16 versus 80
• ROPs: 8 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 4 versus 20
• Tensor cores: none listed versus 80
• Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s versus 82.30 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 46.40 GTexel/s versus 205.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 13.17 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 130 W
• Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: none versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: not listed versus 300 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x8
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b
• Release date: 2025-02-28 versus 2025-06-30
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus GeForce 40
• Successor: none listed versus GeForce 60
• Launch MSRP: none versus 249 USD
• Benchmark scores: none versus ten recorded tests
• Percentile: 50 versus 66
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 21,035

Both chips share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support. The RTX 5050's FP32 compute of 13.17 TFLOPS is roughly 8.9 times higher than the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The texture rate difference is even larger: 205.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a ratio of about 4.4x.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in the database?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 has recorded scores. Its average benchmark score is 21,035, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,502 and a Passmark G3D score of 17,326. The AMD Radeon 840M has no benchmark scores listed.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 840M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory size.

Q: How do the compute capabilities compare?

A: The RTX 5050 delivers 13.17 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), with 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1), with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which chip has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 5050 has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The 840M has 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 5050 has a TDP of 130 W, is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 300 W. The 840M has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no power connectors.

Q: How does the RTX 5050 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5050 is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713 average score). It is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153), 1% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 wins in every measurable performance category in the database. It has a higher pixel rate (82.30 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (205.8 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (13.17 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS). Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a dedicated, high-speed memory pool that the 840M cannot match with system shared memory. The RTX 5050 also leads in ray tracing hardware with 20 cores versus 4, and it has 80 tensor cores for AI workloads, which the 840M lacks entirely.

The RTX 5050's benchmark data confirms its advantage. Its Passmark G3D score of 17,326 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 90,334 represent the only measured performance figures available for either chip. The RTX 5050's percentile rank of 66 places it above the 840M's 50th percentile. Its nearest rival cluster, all within 1.6% of its average score, shows it performs in line with established discrete mobile GPUs like the RTX A4000 Mobile and the RX Vega M GL.

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RTX 5050's 130 W, making it suitable for fanless or low-power ultraportable designs. It uses no power connectors, requires no suggested PSU, and occupies no expansion slot as an IGP. Its 4 nm process node is more advanced than the RTX 5050's 5 nm node, though the 840M's transistor count and die size are unlisted. The 840M's 4 ray tracing cores provide some RT capability, but the low shader count and system shared memory limit its practical use to light loads.

For use cases, the RTX 5050 is the choice for gaming, 3D rendering, GPU compute, and any workload that benefits from dedicated VRAM and high throughput. The 840M is the choice for battery-conscious portable systems where integrated graphics suffice for desktop composition, video playback, and light productivity. The absence of any 840M benchmark scores means the database cannot quantify its real-world speed, but its architectural specs place it in the entry-level integrated segment. The RTX 5050, with a launch MSRP of 249 USD and a strong benchmark profile, occupies the mainstream discrete mobile segment.