AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the architectural generations of the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on the Krackan Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB206 chip, part of the GeForce 50 generation.

Q: How do the process nodes compare between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and the database records its die size as 181 mm² with 21,900 million transistors.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 has 3,840 shading units. That is a 15-fold difference in raw shader count.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 has 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the recorded percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 sits at the 72nd percentile, which indicates it outperforms a larger share of the field.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, which is higher than the RTX 5060's boost clock of 2497 MHz. However, the RTX 5060 has a much higher base clock of 2280 MHz compared to the 840M's 400 MHz base clock.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. It belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, and its 4 nm TSMC process node is the more advanced manufacturing process of the two. The 840M operates as an IGP, meaning it shares system memory and its bandwidth is system dependent. Its power envelope is just 15 W, and it requires no power connectors, fitting into an IGP slot width.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card built on the GB206 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture. It uses a 5 nm TSMC process node, and the database records its transistor count at 21,900 million on a 181 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.0M per mm². The RTX 5060 has a 145 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

The compute resources differ enormously. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The RTX 5060 has 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 30 ray tracing cores, and 120 tensor cores. The RTX 5060 also has dedicated tensor cores, which the 840M lacks entirely. This indicates the RTX 5060 is built for workloads that leverage Tensor Core acceleration, while the 840M has no such hardware.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 840M uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth that varies with the host system. The RTX 5060 has 8 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the RTX 5060 is recorded at 1750 MHz, 28 Gbps effective.

The bus interfaces also differ. The 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 5060 uses PCIe 5.0 x8. The RTX 5060 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The 840M, being an IGP, has no physical dimensions recorded and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The RTX 5060 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates differ, with the 840M released on 2025-02-28 and the RTX 5060 released on 2025-05-18. The RTX 5060 has a launch MSRP of 299 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split in capabilities. The RTX 5060 dominates in raw compute performance, with its average benchmark score of 26,331 placing it at the 72nd percentile. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 860M at 26,401 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26,553 (0.8% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT at 26,011 (1.2% behind). These close margins suggest the RTX 5060 sits in a competitive performance band among mid-range discrete GPUs.

The 840M, with its 50th percentile ranking and zero recorded benchmark scores, is positioned much lower in the performance hierarchy. Its role is that of an integrated solution for portable devices, where its 15 W TDP and system-shared memory make it suitable for lightweight workloads rather than demanding 3D rendering.

In specific benchmark tests, the RTX 5060 demonstrates strong results. Its PassMark G3D score is 20,891, and its PassMark GPU Compute score is 10,899. Geekbench results show 112,787 for OpenCL and 113,321 for Vulkan. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,628. These numbers indicate the RTX 5060 is capable of sustained compute and graphics workloads.

The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its wins cannot be quantified directly. The data indicates the RTX 5060 wins on every measurable benchmark axis where numbers exist.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: 4 nm for the 840M versus 5 nm for the RTX 5060. Transistor count is unknown for the 840M but recorded as 21,900 million for the RTX 5060. Die size is unknown for the 840M but 181 mm² for the RTX 5060. Transistor density is null for the 840M and 121.0M per mm² for the RTX 5060.

Base clocks differ substantially: 400 MHz for the 840M versus 2280 MHz for the RTX 5060. Boost clocks are 2900 MHz for the 840M and 2497 MHz for the RTX 5060. Memory clocks are system shared for the 840M versus 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) for the RTX 5060.

Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: system shared versus 8 GB GDDR7, 128-bit, 448.0 GB/s. Shading units are 256 versus 3,840. TMUs are 16 versus 120. ROPs are 8 versus 48. Ray tracing cores are 4 versus 30. Tensor cores are null versus 120.

Pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s for the 840M versus 119.9 GPixel/s for the RTX 5060. Texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s versus 299.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,484.8 GFLOPS versus 19.18 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 19.18 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 15 W versus 145 W. Slot width is IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is null versus 300 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Dimensions are null for the 840M, while the RTX 5060 measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. Release dates differ: 2025-02-28 versus 2025-05-18. The 840M has no launch MSRP, while the RTX 5060 has a launch MSRP of 299 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060. The wins counters show zero for both GPUs, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This means no direct comparative test results exist in the database for these two specific products.

However, the RTX 5060 has its own benchmark results that can be examined. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3,628. Geekbench OpenCL returns 112,787, and Geekbench Vulkan returns 113,321. PassMark results include 127 for DirectX 10, 200 for DirectX 11, 77 for DirectX 12, 225 for DirectX 9, 1,154 for G2D, 20,891 for G3D, and 10,899 for GPU Compute. The average benchmark score is 26,331.

The RTX 5060's nearest rival data provides context for its standing. The AMD Radeon 860M scores 26,401, which is 0.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421, also 0.3% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, 0.8% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 26,011, which is 1.2% lower. These deltas are all within 1.2 percentage points, indicating the RTX 5060 performs in a tightly clustered range with these rivals.

The 840M has no recorded benchmarks or rival data. Its percentile ranking of 50 versus the RTX 5060's 72 suggests a meaningful gap in overall performance, but without direct benchmark scores for the 840M, the exact magnitude cannot be verified from the database.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is a discrete GPU with substantial compute resources, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR7 memory, and benchmark results that place it at the 72nd percentile. Its average score of 26,331 and its proximity to rivals like the AMD Radeon 860M and RX 6750 XT indicate it operates in a competitive mid-range discrete segment.

The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU with 256 shading units, system-shared memory, and a 15 W power envelope. Its 50th percentile ranking places it below the RTX 5060 in the overall distribution. The 840M has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be directly compared to the RTX 5060's measured results.

The architectural differences reinforce this split. The RTX 5060 has 15 times more shading units, 30 ray tracing cores, 120 tensor cores, and a 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 840M has 4 ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and system-dependent memory bandwidth. The RTX 5060 also has a much higher pixel rate of 119.9 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 299.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s.

The RTX 5060 is the choice for workloads that demand dedicated graphics memory, high compute throughput, and ray tracing capability. The 840M is the choice for portable systems where the 15 W power draw and integrated form factor are the primary constraints. The database shows the RTX 5060 with a 72nd percentile ranking and measurable benchmark victories, while the 840M's role is defined by its integration and low power profile. The recorded data supports selecting the RTX 5060 for performance-focused applications and the 840M for power-constrained portable devices.