AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and NVIDIA RTX A400 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, one as an integrated processor for portable devices, the other as a discrete workstation card. The recorded data shows a clear split in their intended roles, yet benchmark results and architectural choices reveal where each holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full set of benchmark scores for the NVIDIA RTX A400, while the AMD Radeon 840M has no recorded benchmark entries. This asymmetry means direct numerical comparison relies entirely on the RTX A400’s measured performance and its position among rivals.

The RTX A400 delivers an average benchmark score of 6078. Its Geekbench OpenCL result stands at 22844, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 22237. In PassMark tests, the card scores 87 in DirectX 9, 32 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, and 27 in DirectX 12. The G2D (2D graphics) score is 899, while the G3D (3D graphics) score reaches 5983. GPU compute performance, measured via PassMark, is 2557.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the RTX A400 sits in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average score of 6077, a delta of 0% against the A400. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% behind. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 achieves 6117, putting it 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019, representing a 1% deficit versus the A400.

This near-parity with the Radeon 760M is notable. The 760M is an integrated GPU, similar in category to the Radeon 840M, yet it trails the discrete RTX A400 by only 1%. The data suggests the A400’s discrete nature does not translate into a dominant lead over modern integrated graphics in this metric. The RTX A400’s percentile ranking against all GPUs is 35, while the Radeon 840M sits at a 50th percentile. That percentile difference implies the 840M, despite lacking recorded benchmark scores, is positioned higher in the overall distribution, likely due to its newer architecture and power efficiency.

Without direct head-to-head tests between the two, the wins are assigned as zero for each side in the database. However, the available numbers allow an inference. The RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 compute is a concrete figure, while the Radeon 840M’s FP32 rating is 1,484.8 GFLOPS (equivalent to 1.4848 TFLOPS). The A400 delivers roughly 82% more raw FP32 throughput. Similarly, the A400’s pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s versus the 840M’s 23.20 GPixel/s, a 21.5% advantage. Texture rate favors the 840M at 46.40 GTexel/s against the A400’s 42.29 GTexel/s, a 9.7% lead for the AMD part.

In memory bandwidth, the A400 has a dedicated 96.00 GB/s from its 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The 840M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth marked as system dependent. The A400’s fixed bandwidth is a clear advantage for workloads that stress memory throughput, but the 840M’s shared memory can scale with faster system RAM, though the data does not specify numbers for that scenario.

FAQ

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its closest rival, the Radeon 760M?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078, while the Radeon 760M scores 6019. The delta is 1%, meaning the A400 is slightly ahead. This margin is small, indicating that a modern integrated GPU can nearly match the A400 in average performance.

Q: What is the RTX A400’s best benchmark result?

A: The highest recorded score is in Geekbench OpenCL at 22844, followed by Geekbench Vulkan at 22237. In PassMark tests, the G3D score of 5983 is the strongest, while G2D is 899 and GPU compute is 2557.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute capacity?

A: The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon 840M provides 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1.4848 TFLOPS). The A400 has a 1.22 TFLOPS advantage in this metric.

Q: Is the Radeon 840M more power efficient?

A: Yes, based on TDP figures. The 840M has a 15 W TDP, while the RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP. The 840M uses one third the power of the A400, though this does not account for system memory power consumption in the shared memory configuration.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have a higher pixel rate?

A: Yes. The A400’s pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s, versus the 840M’s 23.20 GPixel/s. This represents a 21.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What process nodes are used by each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The smaller node for AMD allows for higher transistor density, though the A400’s die size is listed as 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon 840M is built on RDNA 3.5 and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically for Strix Point Mobile. Its chip is named Krackan Point. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, with the GA107 chip.

Process technology separates them clearly. The 840M is fabricated on a 4 nm node at TSMC, while the A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. The A400’s transistor count is 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The 840M’s transistor count and die size are unknown in the database, so no direct density comparison is possible. The smaller node for AMD suggests a potential efficiency advantage, but without die dimensions, the data limits further inference.

Shader resources differ substantially. The 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The A400 has three times the shader count, 50% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. However, the 840M counters with a higher texture rate (46.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s) because its boost clock reaches 2900 MHz, while the A400’s boost is 1762 MHz.

Ray tracing hardware is present in both. The 840M includes 4 ray tracing cores, while the A400 has 6. Tensor cores are exclusive to the NVIDIA side, with 24 tensor cores listed. The AMD part has no tensor core field populated, indicating no equivalent hardware. This affects AI-accelerated workloads, where the A400 can leverage tensor cores for tasks like DLSS or compute routines, though the database does not specify such performance.

API support is identical for both: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means feature-level compatibility is the same for modern graphics APIs, despite the architectural differences.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences. Clock speeds: the 840M runs at a base of 400 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz, while the A400 has a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz. The AMD part has a much higher boost clock but a lower base, reflecting its integrated design that ramps up under load.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 840M uses system shared memory with a shared type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The A400 has dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. Memory clock for the A400 is listed as 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the 840M’s memory clock is tied to the system.

Power and physical form: the 840M has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width or power connectors. The A400 has a TDP of 50 W, is a single-slot card, and also has no power connectors (likely drawing power from the PCIe slot). The A400 includes a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the 840M has no suggested PSU listed.

The bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the 840M’s outputs are portable device dependent, while the A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions are only given for the A400: 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The 840M, being integrated, has no dimensions.

Release dates differ significantly. The A400 was released on 2024-04-15, while the 840M came later on 2025-02-28. The A400’s predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada. The 840M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, with no successor listed. Production status is active for both.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The RTX A400 is a discrete workstation card with dedicated memory, higher FP32 compute (2.706 TFLOPS versus 1,484.8 GFLOPS), more shading units (768 versus 256), and tensor cores. Its average benchmark score of 6078 places it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 840M, with no recorded benchmarks but a 50th percentile ranking, likely benefits from its newer RDNA 3.5 architecture and 4 nm process.

For raw compute tasks like rendering or GPU-accelerated calculations, the A400’s higher FP32 throughput and dedicated 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger choice. Its 4 GB GDDR6 memory is fixed and reliable, avoiding contention with system memory. The A400’s pixel rate advantage (28.19 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s) also favors it in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Radeon 840M wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus 50 W, and on texture rate (46.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s). Its higher boost clock (2900 MHz versus 1762 MHz) suggests it can burst performance when needed, but its shared memory architecture means bandwidth depends on the host system.

Neither GPU has a decisive win in the database’s head-to-head table, which records zero wins for each due to missing direct comparisons. But the available specs indicate the A400 is for workstation tasks requiring consistent, dedicated performance, while the 840M suits portable devices where low power and adequate integrated graphics are priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in scenarios that demand sustained compute throughput. Its 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 is a 82% advantage over the 840M’s 1,484.8 GFLOPS. In pixel-heavy workloads, the A400’s 28.19 GPixel/s beats the 840M’s 23.20 GPixel/s. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, unlike the 840M’s system-dependent shared memory. The presence of 24 tensor cores gives the A400 a hardware path for AI and machine learning inference that the 840M lacks entirely.

The Radeon 840M wins on texture processing. Its 46.40 GTexel/s exceeds the A400’s 42.29 GTexel/s, which is notable because texture rate often matters in gaming and 3D scenes with complex surfaces. Its power draw is a third of the A400’s (15 W versus 50 W), making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermals and battery life are critical. The 4 nm TSMC process versus the 8 nm Samsung process suggests the 840M has a more efficient transistor design, even though exact density numbers are unavailable for the AMD part. The 840M’s 50th percentile ranking versus the A400’s 35th also hints that, across the broader GPU landscape, the 840M is considered a more average performer, which may reflect its integration into capable portable systems.

The A400’s single-slot form factor and 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a fit for multi-monitor workstation setups. The 840M’s portable device dependent outputs tie it to specific laptop designs. In terms of release timing, the 840M is newer (2025-02-28 versus 2024-04-15), which aligns with its architectural advancement.

For a user building a small workstation with dedicated GPU needs, the A400 provides fixed memory, higher compute, and tensor core support. For a portable device user who needs occasional GPU acceleration without a discrete card, the 840M delivers competitive texture performance at a fraction of the power. The data does not declare a universal winner; it defines two separate domains of strength.