AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764. The AMD part wins by a margin of 1.3%.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank compared to all other graphics cards in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 sits at the 33rd percentile, placing it slightly above the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which sits at the 31st percentile. Both are near the lower-middle range of the performance distribution.

Q: What are the closest rivals for the AMD Radeon R7 M465?

A: The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M435 (average score 5859, 0.3% higher), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, 1.5% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731, 1.9% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 1.9% higher). The M465 sits within a tight cluster of these parts.

Q: What are the closest rivals for the NVIDIA GeForce 840M?

A: The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5317, 0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284, 0.7% lower). The 840M’s average score of 5322 places it in a very narrow band around these competitors.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a boost clock of 1124 MHz, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M465’s boost clock of 1024 MHz. The NVIDIA part also has a higher base clock at 1029 MHz versus 730 MHz.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan, and what version?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M supports Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, and notably, the database contains a separate Geekbench Vulkan score for the 840M (4880) while no Vulkan score is recorded for the M465.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Topaz, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the Maxwell architecture on the GM108S chip. Both are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the underlying designs diverge significantly.

The AMD chip is larger in terms of physical resources: it integrates 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², whereas the NVIDIA chip has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This gives the AMD part a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², while the NVIDIA part achieves a slightly higher density of 13.2M per mm². The AMD die is roughly 62% larger by area, and the transistor count is about 52% higher, suggesting a more complex or differently balanced layout.

Both GPUs have the same number of shading units (384) and ROPs (8), but the texture units differ: the AMD Radeon R7 M465 has 24 TMUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has 16 TMUs. This means the AMD part can process texture operations at a higher rate, which shows up in the texture rate figures: 24.58 GTexel/s for the M465 versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the 840M. The pixel rates are closer, with the 840M slightly ahead at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), yielding 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M also has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus, but it uses DDR3 memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), resulting in only 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part has more than double the memory bandwidth, which can matter in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The NVIDIA part draws a rated 33 W TDP, while the AMD part has no TDP listed in the database. The 840M is classified as an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, and its display outputs are noted as “Portable Device Dependent.” The AMD part’s power and connectivity details are not recorded.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the AMD Radeon R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is newer on the NVIDIA side (1.4 versus 1.2.170). The AMD part lists FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the NVIDIA part lists no FP16 capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764. The AMD part wins by 1.3%. This is a slim margin, but it is consistent with the percentile placement of both cards: the M465 at the 33rd percentile and the 840M at the 31st percentile.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the AMD part’s single OpenCL score of 5841 is its average score, while the NVIDIA part has two recorded benchmarks: an OpenCL score of 5764 and a Vulkan score of 4880. The NVIDIA part’s average benchmark score drops to 5322 when including the Vulkan result, which is notably lower than its OpenCL score. This suggests the 840M performs significantly worse in Vulkan than in OpenCL, at least in this database’s measurements.

The delta between the two in OpenCL is small, but the AMD part’s advantage in texture rate and memory bandwidth may explain the edge. The M465’s 24.58 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the 840M is a 36.7% advantage in raw texture throughput. The memory bandwidth gap is even larger: 36.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, a 124.7% advantage for the AMD part. However, the NVIDIA part has higher clock speeds (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost versus 730 MHz base, 1024 MHz boost), which helps close the gap in compute-heavy tasks where clocks matter more than bandwidth.

The FP32 compute figures tell a mixed story. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a higher FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon R7 M465, a 9.8% advantage. Yet in the OpenCL benchmark, the AMD part still wins. This implies that the benchmark is not purely compute-bound, or that the AMD architecture’s memory bandwidth advantage compensates for its lower raw compute.

The Verdict

The data shows a narrow overall win for the AMD Radeon R7 M465 in the only direct comparison available. The 1.3% OpenCL advantage is small, but it is enough to place the M465 at a higher percentile (33rd versus 31st). For users who prioritize OpenCL performance, the AMD part is the pick.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has attributes that may appeal in other contexts. Its higher clock speeds and FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS) suggest it could handle compute workloads that scale with raw shader throughput. The NVIDIA part also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), and it has a recorded Vulkan score, though that score is far below its OpenCL result.

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the better choice for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, given its 36.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its texture rate is also higher, which could benefit games or applications that rely on texturing. The NVIDIA part’s lower TDP (33 W) and IGP classification may make it a more power-efficient option, though the AMD part’s power draw is not recorded.

Neither GPU is a strong performer in the overall database: the M465 sits at the 33rd percentile and the 840M at the 31st percentile. Both are end-of-life products, with the M465 released in May 2016 and the 840M in March 2014. The M465 is the newer part and edges out the 840M in the one direct benchmark, but the margin is thin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M465 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Topaz | GM108S |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M400) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 786.4 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | None | 33 W |

| Slot Width | None | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Display Outputs | None | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 900M |

| Percentile | 33 | 31 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5841 | 5322 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins in the direct OpenCL benchmark, with a 5841 score versus 5764 for the NVIDIA GeForce 840M. It also holds clear advantages in memory bandwidth (36.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s), and transistor count (1,550 million versus 1,020 million). The M465’s GDDR5 memory is a significant architectural advantage over the 840M’s DDR3, and this likely contributes to its benchmark win despite lower clock speeds.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins in raw compute metrics: FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS), pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s), and both base and boost clocks (1029 MHz and 1124 MHz versus 730 MHz and 1024 MHz). It also has a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and a lower TDP (33 W). The 840M’s higher clocks mean it could outperform the M465 in scenarios where clock speed dominates, but the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that.

For use cases: the AMD part is better for bandwidth-heavy workloads, such as texture-heavy graphics or memory-intensive compute. The NVIDIA part is better for power-conscious mobile implementations, given its 33 W TDP and IGP classification. The M465’s higher percentile (33 versus 31) and its win in the head-to-head benchmark make it the stronger overall performer in the database’s measurements, but the margin is small enough that real-world differences could vary by workload.