AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation shows two GPUs with fundamentally different design targets. The Radeon 840M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor built on TSMC 4 nm with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is a 50 W embedded-class GPU using the AD107 chip on TSMC 5 nm with Ada Lovelace architecture. The recorded data places both at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but the underlying specifications reveal a large separation in raw computational capacity.

The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 8.3 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the Radeon 840M. That ratio appears across nearly every measured hardware category. The RTX 2000 has 3,072 shading units versus 256, 96 texture mapping units versus 16, and 48 raster output units versus 8. The NVIDIA part also carries 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, features that the AMD IGP does not match in count. The Radeon 840M lists only 4 RT cores and no tensor core entry.

For workloads that depend on sustained GPU compute, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the clear selection. For systems constrained to a 15 W power envelope where an integrated GPU is required, the Radeon 840M is the only option between these two. The RTX 2000 draws 50 W and requires a dedicated embedded implementation, whereas the Radeon 840M is an IGP with system-shared memory and no power connectors. Users with a fixed 15 W platform cannot substitute the NVIDIA part, and users needing 12.35 TFLOPS of compute cannot substitute the AMD part. The choice is dictated by platform power limits and memory architecture, not by preference.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins in power efficiency at the platform level. Its 15 W TDP is one third of the RTX 2000's 50 W TDP. It also integrates directly into a processor package, using system-shared memory and requiring no dedicated VRAM. This makes it suitable for thin portable devices where the memory bus width, memory type, and memory size are all determined by the host system.

The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every measured compute and rendering metric. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is fixed and independent of system memory configuration. The Radeon 840M's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it varies with the host platform's memory setup. The NVIDIA part also provides PCIe 4.0 x16 connectivity, double the interface width of the Radeon 840M's PCIe 4.0 x8.

Pixel throughput favors the RTX 2000 at 96.48 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the Radeon 840M. Texture throughput is 193.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA GPU's boost clock of 2010 MHz is lower than the Radeon's 2900 MHz boost, but the massive difference in execution units more than compensates. The RTX 2000 also holds an advantage in API support parity, as both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the NVIDIA implementation adds 96 tensor cores for AI-oriented workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The Radeon 840M uses TSMC 4 nm with RDNA 3.5 architecture and the Krackan Point chip, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses TSMC 5 nm with the AD107 chip in the Ada-MW generation. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 2010 MHz.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The RTX 2000 integrates 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison of density is possible from the recorded data.

The Radeon 840M features 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. The RTX 2000 features 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part's FP16 throughput is equal to its FP32 throughput at 1,484.8 GFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part also lists a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, with both at 12.35 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is the most significant structural difference. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The RTX 2000 uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and a fixed 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective transfer rate. The AMD part's memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it does not have an independent memory clock.

Power delivery also separates the two. The Radeon 840M is rated at 15 W with no power connectors and an IGP slot width. The RTX 2000 is rated at 50 W, also with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, but the higher TDP indicates a more substantial power delivery requirement within its embedded platform. The bus interface differs as well, with the AMD part using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the NVIDIA part using PCIe 4.0 x16.

The release timeline places the Radeon 840M as the newer product, with a release date of February 28, 2025. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation was released on March 20, 2023. The NVIDIA part has a documented predecessor, Ampere-MW, and successor, Blackwell-MW. The AMD part lists Navi II IGP as its predecessor and has no successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, approximately 8.3 times the 1,484.8 GFLOPS of the Radeon 840M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The RTX 2000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 840M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation boosts to 2010 MHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the NVIDIA part has far more shading units.

Q: Are these GPUs suitable for the same form factor?

A: Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors, but the Radeon 840M is a 15 W integrated processor GPU while the RTX 2000 is a 50 W embedded part. The power difference and memory architecture make them suitable for different platform designs.

Q: What is the transistor density of the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The RTX 2000 contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a density of 118.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include direct benchmark scores for either GPU, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The comparison must therefore be drawn from the architectural specifications and derived throughput values in the database.

The largest single-metric advantage for the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is in FP32 compute. At 12.35 TFLOPS, it exceeds the Radeon 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS by a factor of 8.3. This gap is consistent with the shading unit count: 3,072 versus 256, a ratio of exactly 12. The texture rate tells a similar story, with 193.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a 4.16 times advantage that aligns with the TMU ratio of 96 to 16, which is 6 times. The pixel rate gap is 96.48 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, a 4.16 times difference matching the ROP ratio of 48 to 8, also 6 times. The small discrepancies in these ratios come from the differing boost clocks between the two parts.

The Radeon 840M counters with a 2900 MHz boost clock, which is 44% higher than the RTX 2000's 2010 MHz boost. This higher clock partially offsets the execution unit deficit, but not enough to close the throughput gaps. The power envelope also favors the AMD part, with 15 W versus 50 W, a 3.33 times difference in power draw.

Memory bandwidth is a decisive separation point. The RTX 2000 provides 256.0 GB/s of fixed bandwidth, while the Radeon 840M's bandwidth is listed as system dependent. In a best-case system memory configuration, the AMD IGP might approach competitive bandwidth, but the database does not specify a value, so the fixed 256.0 GB/s of the NVIDIA part stands as the only recorded number.

The RTX 2000 also carries 96 tensor cores, which the Radeon 840M does not list at all. This gives the NVIDIA part a dedicated path for AI acceleration that the AMD IGP lacks. The RT core count also favors NVIDIA, with 24 RT cores versus 4 on the AMD part, a 6 times advantage.

The interface width difference of PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 affects data transfer between the GPU and host. The NVIDIA part has double the interface bandwidth available. Both GPUs share the same production status, listed as active, and both lack a launch MSRP in the database.

The release timing shows the Radeon 840M arrived nearly two years after the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation, with dates of February 28, 2025 and March 20, 2023 respectively. The newer AMD part uses a smaller process node at 4 nm versus 5 nm, but the NVIDIA part compensates with a larger die and 18,900 million transistors. The AMD part's die size and transistor count remain unspecified, preventing a density comparison.

For practical workload allocation, the data indicates that the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation dominates in compute-heavy tasks, high-resolution rendering, and any workload that benefits from dedicated VRAM with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M fits into 15 W platforms where system memory sharing is acceptable and where the 2900 MHz boost clock can provide responsive integrated graphics performance. Neither part is a substitute for the other; the selection depends entirely on the platform power budget and memory architecture.