AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The data in the database shows a decisive performance gap between these two GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a workstation-class accelerator designed for demanding professional workloads, while the AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for mobile efficiency. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 dwarfs the 840M's recorded average of 0, reflecting a fundamental difference in purpose and capability.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice for professionals running GPU-accelerated rendering, compute, or AI tasks, based on its 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 20 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory. The Radeon 840M, with 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and system-shared memory, is suited only for light integrated graphics duties in a portable device. The data confirms that there is no contest in raw compute: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers roughly 18 times the FP32 throughput of the Radeon 840M, a figure derived directly from the recorded specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in every measurable compute category in the database. Its pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the Radeon 840M shows a 6x advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The texture rate of 417.6 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s represents a 9x lead. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 360.0 GB/s on a 160-bit bus versus system-dependent shared memory on the AMD part.

The Radeon 840M wins only in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 15 W TDP versus 130 W for the RTX 4000 Ada Generation means it can operate in thin-and-light designs without a dedicated power connector. The 840M is an IGP with no slot width, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot card measuring 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The AMD part also carries a higher boost clock at 2900 MHz versus 2175 MHz, though this does not translate into a performance advantage given the massive difference in shading units, 256 versus 6144.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Radeon 840M uses AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built on the Krackan Point chip within the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, built on the AD104 chip within the Workstation Ada generation.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Radeon 840M's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The NVIDIA part features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The AMD part features 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation also has dedicated 20 GB GDDR6 memory with a 160-bit bus, while the Radeon 840M relies entirely on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation connects via PCIe 4.0 x16 and outputs to 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The NVIDIA card requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin power connector; the AMD IGP needs no external power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers 26.73 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the Radeon 840M. The NVIDIA part also reaches 26.73 TFLOPS FP16, while the AMD part achieves 1,484.8 GFLOPS FP16, both at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system-shared memory with a system-shared bus width and system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are their power requirements?

The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

Both support ray tracing, but with different core counts. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 48 RT cores, while the Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the physical size difference?

The Radeon 840M is an IGP with no slot width, integrated into a portable device. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot card measuring 245 mm (9.6 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Q: What is the release timeline?

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation was released on August 8, 2023, and the Radeon 840M was released on February 28, 2025. Both are listed as Active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and the Radeon 840M has no benchmark scores on file. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation, however, has two recorded Geekbench results: 146,593 in OpenCL and 123,842 in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 135,218, placing it at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (-0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (-0.9% delta).

The Radeon 840M's percentile rank of 50 and average benchmark score of 0 indicate that no validated performance data has been recorded for it. The comparison therefore rests on the specification sheet. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's FP32 throughput of 26.73 TFLOPS is 18 times the 840M's 1,484.8 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 139.2 GPixel/s is exactly 6 times the 840M's 23.20 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 417.6 GTexel/s is exactly 9 times the 840M's 46.40 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card's 64 ROPs are 8 times the AMD part's 8 ROPs, and its 192 TMUs are 12 times the 840M's 16 TMUs. Shading units stand at 6,144 versus 256, a 24x difference.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part: 2900 MHz boost versus 2175 MHz boost, and 400 MHz base versus 1500 MHz base. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's higher base clock and lower boost clock reflect a workstation design tuned for sustained loads, whereas the Radeon 840M's high boost clock reflects bursty integrated graphics behavior. Memory clocks also differ, with the RTX 4000 Ada Generation running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, while the Radeon 840M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 35,800 million |

| Die size | Unknown | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not listed | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 400 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2900 MHz | 2175 MHz |

| Memory | System Shared | 20 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | System Shared | 160 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 360.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 256 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 16 | 192 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| RT cores | 4 | 48 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 192 |

| Pixel rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 139.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 417.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 26.73 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 130 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-08-08 |

| Percentile | 50 | 95 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 135,218 |

The specification table shows that the RTX 4000 Ada Generation leads in every compute and memory metric. The Radeon 840M counters with a smaller process node, higher boost clock, lower TDP, and no external power requirement. The database records no launch MSRP for either part, and no benchmark wins for either GPU in head-to-head testing, as no such tests exist in the record.