AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, using a 4 nm process at TSMC. It operates within the Krackan Point chip family and is categorized under the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is a discrete workstation card based on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It belongs to the Workstation Ampere generation and carries 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The RTX A1000 was released on 2024-04-15, while the Radeon 840M appeared later on 2025-02-28. Both are currently listed as Active in production status. The Radeon 840M has no dedicated benchmarks recorded in the database, while the RTX A1000 has three benchmark entries. The RTX A1000 holds a percentile ranking of 79 against all GPUs, whereas the Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile. The RTX A1000 also has an average benchmark score of 34207, while the Radeon 840M has a score of 0 due to missing test data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 840M and the NVIDIA RTX A1000. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win count for each side is zero. This means there are no recorded side-by-side test results for these two specific products in any shared workload. What is available instead is the RTX A1000's individual benchmark performance, which can serve as a reference point for its capabilities.

The RTX A1000 achieves a score of 969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a demanding graphics test that stresses modern DirectX 12 rendering paths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 records 52078 points, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 49574 points. These results place the RTX A1000 at the 79th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 34207.

Because the Radeon 840M has no benchmark entries, there is no numerical basis for comparing its rasterization performance, compute throughput, or API-specific behavior against the RTX A1000. The RTX A1000's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 34154 on average, which is 0.2% behind the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT also scores 34133, again 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA TITAN V scores 34355, placing it 0.4% ahead of the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33997, which is 0.6% behind. These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX A1000 sits within a tightly clustered performance band among these older and mid-range cards.

The lack of head-to-head data means the Radeon 840M cannot be positioned directly against the RTX A1000 in any specific test. The RTX A1000's percentile rank of 79 suggests it outperforms roughly four out of five GPUs in the database, but the Radeon 840M's 50th percentile ranking implies a mid-pack position. The 29-percentile gap between the two is the only direct comparative metric available, and it indicates a substantial performance separation, though the absence of benchmark scores for the Radeon 840M prevents quantifying that gap in absolute terms.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 holds a clear advantage in every measurable category because it is a discrete card with dedicated memory and a much larger execution resource pool. Its shading units number 2304, compared to 256 for the Radeon 840M, which is a 9-fold difference in raw shader count. The RTX A1000 also has 72 texture mapping units versus 16, and 32 render output units versus 8. This translates to a pixel rate of 46.78 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 105.3 GTexel/s for the RTX A1000, against 23.20 GPixel/s and 46.40 GTexel/s for the Radeon 840M. The RTX A1000 delivers approximately double the pixel throughput and over double the texture throughput of the Radeon 840M.

In floating-point compute, the RTX A1000 outputs 6.737 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Radeon 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which is 1.485 TFLOPS. The RTX A1000 is roughly 4.5 times faster in FP32 throughput. Both cards support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 rates, so the RTX A1000 also leads there by the same margin. The RTX A1000 additionally includes 72 tensor cores and 18 RT cores, while the Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores and no tensor cores at all. This makes the RTX A1000 the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated tensor operations, which are used in AI and machine learning workloads.

Memory is another decisive split. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as system dependent. The RTX A1000's dedicated memory avoids contention with the CPU and provides predictable bandwidth, while the Radeon 840M's performance is tied to the host system's memory configuration. The RTX A1000 also has a larger L2 cache (not specified in the data, but the architecture supports it) and a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the Radeon 840M requires no additional power connectors and runs at 15 W TDP.

The Radeon 840M's wins are confined to efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the RTX A1000's 50 W TDP. It is an IGP with no slot width, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and produces no additional heat inside the chassis beyond the CPU package. The Radeon 840M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, which is a newer node than the RTX A1000's 8 nm process. This process advantage contributes to its lower power draw. The Radeon 840M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, matching the RTX A1000's bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 840M uses RDNA 3.5, which is a graphics-first architecture optimized for power efficiency in integrated settings. It is built on TSMC's 4 nm process, which allows for a high density of transistors in a small area. The RTX A1000 uses Ampere, NVIDIA's architecture that balances rasterization with compute and tensor capabilities. It is built on Samsung's 8 nm process, which is an older and less dense node.

The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units arranged in a unified shader design, typical of RDNA architectures. It includes 4 RT cores for ray tracing, but no tensor cores, meaning it lacks dedicated hardware for matrix math. Its FP32 and FP16 rates are identical at 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which indicates that FP16 is processed at the same rate as FP32 rather than being doubled. The RTX A1000 has 2304 CUDA cores (referred to as shading units in the data), 72 tensor cores, and 18 RT cores. Its FP32 and FP16 rates are also identical at 6.737 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 FP16 ratio as well. The tensor cores in the RTX A1000 are the key differentiator, enabling accelerated AI inference and training tasks that the Radeon 840M cannot handle efficiently.

The process node difference is significant. The Radeon 840M's 4 nm process is newer and more power-efficient, allowing it to achieve a 2900 MHz boost clock from a 400 MHz base clock. The RTX A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost clock of 1462 MHz, which is modestly lower due to the 8 nm process. The Radeon 840M's clock speed is 1.98 times higher at boost, but its much smaller shader count means the clock advantage cannot compensate for the resource deficit.

The RTX A1000's memory subsystem is fully specified in the database: 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus, 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a memory clock of 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The Radeon 840M's memory is entirely system shared, with no dedicated bus width or bandwidth figure. This architectural difference means the RTX A1000 provides consistent, high-bandwidth memory access, while the Radeon 840M depends on the host CPU's memory controller and available DRAM.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is identical. The RTX A1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon 840M's display outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the laptop or system it is integrated into.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products. The Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip and the Navi III IGP generation, while the RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip and the Workstation Ampere generation. The process node is 4 nm for AMD and 8 nm for NVIDIA. The Radeon 840M has unknown transistor count and die size, while the RTX A1000 has 8,700 million transistors and a 200 mm² die with a 43.5M per mm² density.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Radeon 840M runs at a base of 400 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz. The RTX A1000 runs at a base of 727 MHz and a boost of 1462 MHz, with a memory clock of 1500 MHz at 12 Gbps effective. The Radeon 840M's memory is system shared in size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ as follows. The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores, with no tensor cores. The RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 23.20 GPixel/s for the Radeon 840M and 46.78 GPixel/s for the RTX A1000. Texture rate is 46.40 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 1,484.8 GFLOPS for the Radeon 840M and 6.737 TFLOPS for the RTX A1000.

Power and physical specifications differ. The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, and has no power connectors. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon 840M's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which matches the RTX A1000's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the Radeon 840M, while the RTX A1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX A1000 has dimensions of 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the Radeon 840M has no recorded dimensions.

The release dates differ by about 10 months, with the RTX A1000 launching on 2024-04-15 and the Radeon 840M on 2025-02-28. The RTX A1000 has a predecessor named Quadro Turing and a successor named Workstation Ada. The Radeon 840M has a predecessor named Navi II IGP and no recorded successor.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 840M have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Radeon 840M has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What is the RTX A1000's performance percentile compared to all GPUs?

A: The RTX A1000 sits at the 79th percentile, while the Radeon 840M is at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX A1000 has 18 RT cores, while the Radeon 840M has 4 RT cores.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the RTX A1000 has 72 tensor cores, while the Radeon 840M has none.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation between these two products. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is a discrete workstation GPU with a 79th percentile rank, 2304 shading units, 72 tensor cores, and 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory. It delivers 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It is designed for sustained professional workloads, including AI inference and ray-traced rendering, where its tensor and RT cores provide hardware acceleration that the Radeon 840M lacks. Its nearest rivals in the database, the RTX A2000 12 GB, RX 560 XT, TITAN V, and RX 480, all score within 0.6% of the A1000, indicating it is a mid-range performer among those older cards.

The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated GPU with a 50th percentile rank, 256 shading units, and no tensor cores. Its performance data is absent from the database, so its actual compute capabilities cannot be verified from recorded measurements. Its strengths are its 15 W TDP, which is one-third of the RTX A1000's 50 W TDP, and its 4 nm process node, which is newer than the RTX A1000's 8 nm node. It is suitable for basic graphics output and light compute tasks in a portable device, but its system shared memory and lack of dedicated bandwidth figures make it unsuitable for memory-intensive workloads.

Users who require professional-grade compute, tensor acceleration, or dedicated graphics memory should select the RTX A1000 based on its recorded benchmark scores and specification sheet. Users who prioritize power efficiency and integrated convenience, and who do not need the RTX A1000's resource advantages, may prefer the Radeon 840M. The absence of benchmark data for the Radeon 840M means any performance claims about it are unsupported by the database, while the RTX A1000's three recorded benchmarks and 79th percentile standing provide concrete evidence of its capability.