AMD Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Comparison

AMD Radeon 840M and NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, one serving as an integrated processor for mobile systems and the other as a professional workstation accelerator. The recorded data shows a 98th percentile ranking for the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell against all GPUs, while the Radeon 840M sits at the 50th percentile. The benchmark scores, architectural choices, and physical specifications reveal two products designed for entirely different workloads, with the NVIDIA part delivering professional-grade compute and the AMD part providing basic graphics for portable devices.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 840M wins exclusively in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP allows it to function as an IGP with no power connectors and a portable device dependent display output. This makes it suitable for thin-and-light notebooks where space and thermal limits prevent discrete graphics. The AMD part uses system shared memory, eliminating the need for dedicated VRAM modules and reducing manufacturing complexity for laptop builders.

The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell wins in every measurable performance category. The database records three benchmark scores for the NVIDIA part: 9,579.5 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 254,116 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 282,631 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 182,109 places it near the top of the database, with a 98th percentile ranking. The nearest rivals show a tight competitive cluster: the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183,725 (0.9% higher), the RTX 5000 Ada Generation scores 184,664 (1.4% higher), the GeForce RTX 4090 D scores 178,050 (2.3% lower), and the A100 SXM4 40 GB scores 187,147 (2.7% higher). The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell sits within a narrow band of high-end compute cards, trading places with these rivals by single-digit percentage points.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is fundamental. AMD uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process for the Krackan Point chip, placing it in the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. NVIDIA uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process for the GB202 chip, belonging to the Blackwell PRO W generation. The NVIDIA chip contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, with a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown in the database.

The compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The Radeon 840M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, 8 render output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has 14,080 shading units, 440 texture mapping units, 160 render output units, 110 ray tracing cores, and 440 tensor cores. The AMD part has no tensor cores recorded. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the hardware executing those APIs is vastly different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table contains no direct comparison entries, so the analysis relies on the individual scores recorded for the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell and the architectural specifications of both parts. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 66.94 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP16, also at 1:1. Converting the AMD figure to TFLOPS gives 1.48 TFLOPS, which means the NVIDIA part offers roughly 45 times the FP32 throughput. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 380.3 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a factor of about 16. The texture rate reaches 1,045.9 GTexel/s on the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell versus 46.40 GTexel/s on the Radeon 840M.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even further. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses 48 GB of GDDR7 on a 384 bit bus, delivering 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure, meaning its performance scales with the host laptop's memory configuration. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell's 1.34 TB/s bandwidth supports its high compute throughput, while the AMD part's shared memory approach keeps power and cost low but limits sustained bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The physical specifications show two different product categories. The Radeon 840M is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, requiring a single 16-pin power connector and a suggested 700 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Clock speeds differ in both direction and magnitude. The AMD part has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2900 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part has a 1740 MHz base clock and a 2377 MHz boost clock. Despite the lower boost clock, the NVIDIA part achieves far higher throughput due to its massive core count. The Radeon 840M's memory clock is listed as "System Shared," while the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell runs its GDDR7 at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective.

Release timing shows a close window. The Radeon 840M launched on February 28, 2025, with the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell following on March 17, 2025. Both are listed as active production parts. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Workstation Ada. Neither has a recorded successor.

The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has a launch MSRP of 5,099 USD. The Radeon 840M has no launch MSRP recorded in the database, consistent with its role as an integrated component sold as part of a laptop rather than as a standalone product. Display outputs for the AMD part are portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA part offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1b.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, while the Radeon 840M delivers 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and FP16, a difference of roughly 45 times in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: How does the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 182,109 sits within 2.7% of the A100 SXM4 40 GB (187,147), 1.4% of the RTX 5000 Ada Generation (184,664), 0.9% of the A100 SXM4 80 GB (183,725), and 2.3% above the GeForce RTX 4090 D (178,050).

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses 48 GB of GDDR7 on a 384 bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power requirement for each part?

A: The Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has a 300 W TDP, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 700 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has 110 ray tracing cores, while the Radeon 840M has 4.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear separation of purpose. The Radeon 840M serves portable devices where the 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, and system shared memory enable basic graphics in thin notebooks. Its 50th percentile ranking reflects mainstream integrated performance. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell serves professional workstation workloads where its 48 GB GDDR7 memory, 66.94 TFLOPS compute, and 110 ray tracing cores justify the 300 W TDP and dual-slot footprint. Its 98th percentile ranking and benchmark scores within a few percent of the A100 and RTX 5000 Ada cards place it firmly in the high-end compute tier.

Buyers should choose based on the platform requirement. A portable system demands the Radeon 840M's integrated design. A workstation needing professional graphics, large memory capacity, and maximum compute throughput points to the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell. The benchmark record shows no overlap in their performance envelopes, and the specification differences confirm that these parts target mutually exclusive markets.