AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation does not include any direct head-to-head benchmark scores. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both parts are zero. This means the database contains no measured performance comparisons between these two mobile graphics solutions at this time.

The lack of benchmark entries is notable given the disparity in their theoretical specifications. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation lists an FP32 throughput of 8.940 TFLOPS, while the Radeon 840M lists 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which converts to roughly 1.48 TFLOPS. That is a substantial gap on paper, but without recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm how those figures translate into application-level performance.

Similarly, the texture rate and pixel rate differ significantly. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a texture rate of 139.7 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 69.84 GPixel/s. The Radeon 840M lists 46.40 GTexel/s and 23.20 GPixel/s respectively. These numbers suggest the NVIDIA part has a large theoretical advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads, but no benchmark results are available to verify real-world behavior.

The percentile field for both GPUs is 50, meaning each sits at the median of the database's GPU distribution. The average benchmark score for both is 0, which again reflects the absence of recorded performance data. Without measured scores, any head-to-head comparison must rely entirely on the specification differences documented in the database.

Where Each One Wins

Because there are no benchmark wins recorded for either GPU, the analysis must shift to the specification fields that indicate intended workloads. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation includes 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores, while the Radeon 840M lists 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor core field. The presence of dedicated tensor hardware on the NVIDIA part points to workloads involving AI acceleration, deep learning inference, and Tensor Core-optimized applications. The Radeon 840M, with only 4 ray tracing cores, still supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so ray-traced content is technically supported, but the hardware commitment is much smaller.

The Radeon 840M operates with a 15 W TDP, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses 35 W. The lower power envelope of the AMD part suggests it is positioned for thinner, lighter systems where thermal and battery constraints are tighter. The NVIDIA part, with more than double the power budget, can sustain higher clock speeds and larger shader counts.

The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent and bus width listed as system shared. For memory-heavy tasks such as large model loading or high-resolution texture streaming, the dedicated VRAM of the NVIDIA part is a clear structural advantage. The AMD part, by relying on shared system memory, is constrained by the host platform's memory configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 3,072 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

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

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) as their DirectX API version. Both also support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Radeon 840M has a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a boost clock of 1455 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a pixel rate of 69.84 GPixel/s, compared to 23.20 GPixel/s for the Radeon 840M.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP, and the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a 35 W TDP. Neither requires external power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field in the database. The Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process node, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses a 5 nm node, both from TSMC. The transistor counts are not comparable because the Radeon 840M lists "unknown" for transistors and die size, while the NVIDIA part lists 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die with a transistor density of 118.9M / mm².

Clock speeds differ sharply. The Radeon 840M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz. The AMD part boosts much higher, but the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base.

Memory is another major split. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6, a 128-bit bus, and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the AMD part lists no discrete memory clock.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also has 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores, while the AMD part has 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor core field.

Rates reflect the resource gap. The Radeon 840M lists 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS and FP16 at 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1). The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation lists 69.84 GPixel/s and 139.7 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 8.940 TFLOPS and FP16 at 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and interface also differ. The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a 35 W TDP and uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. The bus interface difference is meaningful for data transfer between the GPU and host.

Release dates are separated by nearly two years. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation was released on 2023-03-20, and the Radeon 840M was released on 2025-02-28. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is listed as Ampere-MW with a successor of Blackwell-MW. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, with no successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture and uses the Krackan Point chip, belonging to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip, part of the Ada-MW generation. The NVIDIA part is placed in the GeForce 20-series, while the AMD part has no series classification.

The process nodes differ: 4 nm for the AMD part versus 5 nm for the NVIDIA part, both fabricated by TSMC. The AMD part has no listed transistor count or die size, while the NVIDIA part has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. The AMD part's memory architecture relies on the host system, which means its performance is tied to platform memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has dedicated GDDR6 memory with fixed bandwidth.

Ray tracing and tensor hardware separate the two architectures clearly. The Radeon 840M has 4 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores. This makes the NVIDIA part structurally more capable for ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workloads, assuming software can utilize those units.

The AMD part has a higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 1455 MHz, which partially compensates for its lower shader count in single-threaded or lightly threaded scenarios. However, the shader count difference is so large that the NVIDIA part's FP32 throughput is roughly six times higher on paper. The FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1 for both, meaning neither part has a dedicated half-precision boost.

Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are marked as Active in production status. The display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent, and both are IGP slot width with no power connectors.

The Verdict

The database contains no benchmark scores for either GPU, so the verdict must come from the specification records. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation offers substantially larger compute resources: 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. It also has dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 4 ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and relies on system-shared memory.

For workloads that depend on raw shader throughput, texture fill, pixel fill, or dedicated VRAM, the NVIDIA part has a clear structural advantage based on its listed specifications. The FP32 figure of 8.940 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the AMD part indicates the NVIDIA GPU should dominate compute-heavy tasks, assuming the specifications translate to real performance. The 35 W TDP of the NVIDIA part reflects the higher power ceiling required to feed those resources.

The AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and a 2900 MHz boost clock. That combination suggests a part designed for power-constrained environments where the host system shares memory and the GPU is not the primary compute engine. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface also limits bandwidth compared to the NVIDIA part's PCIe 4.0 x16.

Users who need dedicated graphics memory, tensor core support, and higher throughput should choose the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation based on the recorded data. Users constrained by power budgets and system size may find the Radeon 840M more aligned with their platform, but the data shows it is a much smaller GPU in almost every measurable specification. The release timing also differs, with the NVIDIA part launching on 2023-03-20 and the AMD part on 2025-02-28, so platform availability may factor into any decision. Without benchmark scores, the database can only confirm the specification gap, not the magnitude of real-world performance differences.