AMD Radeon 840M vs Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Radeon 840M and the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs in the database. Without measured performance results, the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures recorded for each product.

The most significant numerical gap appears in raw compute throughput. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 840M produces 1,484.8 GFLOPS, which equates to 1.4848 TFLOPS. The LX 7G100 therefore holds a roughly 16.5x advantage in FP32 throughput based on the recorded figures. In FP16 workloads, the separation widens further: the LX 7G100 reaches 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Radeon 840M caps at 1,484.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The LX 7G100 exceeds the Radeon 840M by approximately 33x in peak FP16 throughput.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The LX 7G100 records 192.0 GPixel/s against 23.20 GPixel/s for the Radeon 840M, an 8.3x advantage. Texture fill rates show 384.0 GTexel/s versus 46.40 GTexel/s, a difference of roughly 8.3x as well. These figures reflect the substantial disparity in shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units: 6,144 versus 256 shading units, 192 versus 16 TMUs, and 96 versus 8 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth presents another decisive split. The LX 7G100 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 840M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth stated as system dependent, meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform. The dedicated memory configuration of the LX 7G100 provides a fixed, significantly higher bandwidth ceiling.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design lineages. The AMD Radeon 840M uses the Krackan Point chip built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 uses the 7G106 chip with a TrueGPU architecture from the 7G100 generation, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Process node differences indicate the Radeon 840M uses a more advanced manufacturing technology, which typically enables higher transistor density and improved power efficiency per unit area. However, the LX 7G100 compensates with a far larger implementation, evidenced by 6,144 shading units compared to 256.

The Radeon 840M includes 4 ray tracing cores, while the LX 7G100 lists no ray tracing core count in the database. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the Radeon 840M runs Vulkan 1.4, while the LX 7G100 runs Vulkan 1.3.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The Radeon 840M has explicit base and boost clocks of 400 MHz and 2900 MHz respectively. The LX 7G100 records no base or boost clock figures, only a memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate. The Radeon's 2900 MHz boost clock partially compensates for its lower shader count, but the math still leaves a wide throughput gap.

Power delivery and physical design differ completely. The Radeon 840M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and no dedicated slot width. The LX 7G100 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 225 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 550 W. Physical dimensions for the LX 7G100 are recorded as 294 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 49 mm in width. The Radeon 840M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its integrated nature.

Bus interface also separates the two. The Radeon 840M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the LX 7G100 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The wider interface on the discrete card provides double the lane count for host communication, a relevant factor for data transfer and system integration.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products aimed at fundamentally different segments. The AMD Radeon 840M is an integrated solution for mobile platforms, consuming 15 W and sharing system memory. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 is a high-power discrete graphics card requiring a dual-slot footprint, a 225 W TDP, and an 8-pin power connector.

For users constrained by integrated graphics, the Radeon 840M offers a functional baseline: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 1,484.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute within a 15 W envelope. It supports current APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and includes ray tracing capability. Its performance ceiling depends on the host system's memory bandwidth, which is recorded as system dependent.

For users needing dedicated graphics performance, the LX 7G100 provides a substantially higher compute profile: 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, and 432.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth. It records 12 GB of memory, which supports large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s indicate suitability for rasterization-heavy workloads.

The selection between the two depends strictly on platform requirements. A portable device with integrated graphics needs the Radeon 840M. A desktop system with a 550 W power supply and space for a 294 mm card can accommodate the LX 7G100. The benchmark database shows no measured performance data to rank one above the other in real-world applications, so the architectural specifications stand as the only recorded basis for comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 840M | Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 |

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

| Chip | Krackan Point | 7G106 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | TrueGPU |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | 7G100 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Boost clock | 2900 MHz | Not recorded |

| Base clock | 400 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory size | System Shared | 12 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 432.0 GB/s |

| Memory clock | System Shared | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 256 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 16 | 192 |

| ROPs | 8 | 96 |

| Ray tracing cores | 4 | Not recorded |

| Pixel rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 46.40 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 1,484.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 225 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 550 W |

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

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

| Vulkan version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 294 mm x 120 mm x 49 mm |

| Release date | 2025-02-28 | 2026-06-17 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 records 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 840M records 1,484.8 GFLOPS. The LX 7G100 holds a roughly 16.5x advantage in this metric.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 840M uses system shared memory with bandwidth recorded as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has a 225 W TDP, requires one 8-pin power connector, and lists a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon 840M and the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the Radeon 840M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX 7G100 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which GPU includes ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD Radeon 840M includes 4 ray tracing cores. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has no ray tracing core count recorded in the database.

Q: What is the physical size of the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100?

A: The LX 7G100 measures 294 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 49 mm in width, occupying a dual-slot configuration. The Radeon 840M is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 840M wins in scenarios that prioritize low power consumption. Its 15 W TDP fits within mobile and compact platforms where a discrete card cannot be installed. The 4 nm process node provides a manufacturing advantage over the 6 nm node of the LX 7G100. The Radeon 840M also holds a Vulkan version advantage at 1.4 versus 1.3, and includes ray tracing hardware that the LX 7G100 does not record. Its 2900 MHz boost clock is the highest clock figure recorded between the two products.

The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 wins decisively in raw throughput metrics. Its 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs drive pixel rates of 192.0 GPixel/s and texture rates of 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute at 24.58 TFLOPS and FP16 compute at 49.15 TFLOPS place it in a different performance class entirely. The dedicated 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth removes dependence on host system memory, and the PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the lane count available to the Radeon 840M's x8 interface. The LX 7G100 also provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon 840M's display outputs are portable device dependent.

The release timeline shows the LX 7G100 launched later, on 2026-06-17, compared to the Radeon 840M's 2025-02-28. Both products are listed as active in the database. The Radeon 840M is the only one with a recorded predecessor, listed as Navi II IGP. Neither product has a recorded successor.

For integrated graphics duties in thin-and-light systems, the Radeon 840M is the only viable option given its IGP form factor and 15 W power envelope. For desktop workstations or gaming rigs with adequate power delivery and physical space, the LX 7G100 offers the recorded specifications for substantially higher compute, memory bandwidth, and display output flexibility. The benchmark database contains no measured scores to confirm real-world performance for either product, so these conclusions rest on the architectural and specification data alone.