NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data confirms a generational chasm: the RTX 5060 Ti is the undisputed performance leader, while the 840M is an end-of-life entry-level part. However, the benchmark database presents a fascinating anomaly: despite the RTX 5060 Ti’s overwhelming raw power, its average benchmark score places it in a lower percentile than the 840M, a quirk driven entirely by the specific tests captured for each product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB delivers a catastrophic defeat to the 840M in raw compute and rendering workloads. The data shows the modern card achieving 23.70 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the 840M’s 863.2 GFLOPS — a factor of 27.4x. This translates directly to texture and pixel throughput: the RTX 5060 Ti’s 370.4 GTexel/s obliterates the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s, and its 123.5 GPixel/s is 13.7x higher than the 8.992 GPixel/s of the older chip. In any modern DirectX 12 workload, the results are not competitive; they are in entirely different categories.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test provides a concrete score for the RTX 5060 Ti: 4019. This is a modern, demanding benchmark that the 840M, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) support, cannot meaningfully run. Similarly, the PassMark G3D score of 22618 for the RTX 5060 Ti is a definitive statement of its gaming capability, while the 840M’s highest captured benchmark scores are 5764 in Geekbench OpenCL and 4880 in Geekbench Vulkan. These are synthetic compute tests, not gaming workloads, but they are the only points of comparison available.

The anomaly appears in the average benchmark score. The 840M has an average score of 5322, while the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB has an average of just 4970. This is misleading, as the averages are not derived from the same test suite. The 840M’s average is based solely on two Geekbench results, which are favorable to its compute-centric architecture. The RTX 5060 Ti’s average is dragged down by several low PassMark scores — 144 in DirectX 10, 219 in DirectX 11, 89 in DirectX 12, and 238 in DirectX 9 — which appear to be outlier results for a card of its capability. These low scores are likely artifacts of the testing environment or driver state at the time of capture, not representative of the hardware. The RTX 5060 Ti’s PassMark G3D score of 22618 tells the real story.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB wins in every meaningful performance category for modern applications. Its 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 28x increase over the 840M’s 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which offers just 16.02 GB/s. This makes the 5060 Ti the clear choice for high-resolution textures, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated features. It has 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the 840M. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 840M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). The newer card’s 23.70 TFLOPS FP16 performance (1:1 ratio) is critical for modern compute and machine learning workloads.

The 840M’s only "win" is in the context of its own generation and its specific benchmark set. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4880 and OpenCL score of 5764 demonstrate it was adequate for light, older titles and basic compute tasks at the time of its 2014 release. Its 33 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate it was designed for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency was paramount. In this narrow sense, it wins on power consumption and portability. However, the RTX 5060 Ti, despite its 180 W TDP and dual-slot width, is the only viable option for any user seeking to run software released in the last five years.

The percentile ranks are counterintuitive. The 840M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5060 Ti sits at the 29th percentile. This is a statistical artifact of the different benchmark suites used to calculate each product's average score. The 840M’s nearest rivals — the GeForce 930A (avg 5317, delta 0.1%), GeForce GTX 980M (avg 5308, delta 0.3%), and GeForce 940M (avg 5284, delta 0.7%) — are all within a 1% delta, confirming its cluster of low-end performance. The RTX 5060 Ti’s rivals — the Quadro 4000 (avg 4979, delta -0.2%) and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (avg 4998, delta -0.6%) — are similarly close, but these are not comparable products in real-world gaming. The data indicates that the average benchmark score is not a reliable cross-generational metric in this case.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB faster than the 840M in gaming?

A: Yes, decisively. The RTX 5060 Ti achieves a PassMark G3D score of 22618, while the 840M has no comparable gaming benchmark score. The RTX 5060 Ti’s FP32 throughput of 23.70 TFLOPS is 27.4x higher than the 840M’s 863.2 GFLOPS, and its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 28x greater.

Q: Why does the 840M have a higher average benchmark score than the RTX 5060 Ti?

A: The averages are calculated from different test suites. The 840M’s 5322 average is based on two Geekbench scores (5764 OpenCL, 4880 Vulkan). The RTX 5060 Ti’s 4970 average is skewed by several low PassMark scores (144 in DirectX 10, 89 in DirectX 12), which are inconsistent with its high PassMark G3D score of 22618. The data reflects test artifacts, not real-world performance.

Q: Can the 840M run modern DirectX 12 games?

A: The 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a feature-limited version of the API. It does not support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) as the RTX 5060 Ti does. This limits its ability to run newer titles that rely on advanced features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory with a 128-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 28x difference in bandwidth and an 8x difference in capacity.

Q: Which GPU has better ray tracing and AI capabilities?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti is the only one with these features. It includes 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores, which are absent from the 840M. Its FP16 performance of 23.70 TFLOPS (1:1) enables AI workloads, while the 840M has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB?

A: The launch MSRP is 429 USD. The 840M has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 5060 Ti is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the 840M uses a 28 nm process. The transistor count is 21,900 million for the RTX 5060 Ti versus 1,020 million for the 840M, with die sizes of 181 mm² and 77 mm² respectively. The newer chip has a base clock of 2407 MHz and a boost of 2572 MHz, compared to the 840M’s 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory speed is 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) for the RTX 5060 Ti versus 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 840M.

The core configuration is vastly different: 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the RTX 5060 Ti, against 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the 840M. The RTX 5060 Ti has 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores; the 840M has none. Power consumption is 180 W for the RTX 5060 Ti versus 33 W for the 840M. The RTX 5060 Ti is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the 840M is an IGP with no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x8 for the RTX 5060 Ti and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 840M. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b for the RTX 5060 Ti, while the 840M is "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The RTX 5060 Ti is based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture (chip GB206), while the 840M uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM108S). Blackwell 2.0 is a modern, highly parallel design with dedicated RT cores for ray tracing and tensor cores for AI processing, both absent from Maxwell. The process node difference is stark: 5 nm versus 28 nm, resulting in a transistor density of 121.0M / mm² for the RTX 5060 Ti against 13.2M / mm² for the 840M.

The RTX 5060 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like hardware ray tracing, variable rate shading, and mesh shaders. The 840M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which lacks these modern features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 5060 Ti’s memory architecture uses GDDR7, a significant leap over the 840M’s DDR3. The generation names are also telling: the 840M is from the GeForce 800M series, while the RTX 5060 Ti is from the GeForce 50 series, with a predecessor of GeForce 40 and a successor of GeForce 60. The 840M’s predecessor was GeForce 700M and its successor was GeForce 900M, marking it as an end-of-life product.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is the only choice for any modern workload. The data shows it is superior in every measurable performance metric, from raw compute (23.70 TFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS) to memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s). Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, ray tracing, and tensor cores makes it future-proof, while the 840M is limited to legacy APIs and has no hardware acceleration for modern features. The 840M’s only advantages are its lower power draw (33 W vs 180 W) and its smaller footprint, which were relevant for 2014-era ultraportables. The RTX 5060 Ti’s higher percentile rank of 31 vs 29 for the 840M is a statistical artifact of differing benchmark suites, not a reflection of real-world performance.

Who should pick the 840M? No one building or buying a system today for gaming, content creation, or AI work. The data indicates it is end-of-life, with a successor (GeForce 900M) already released. Its performance is clustered with low-end parts like the GeForce 930A and 940M, and it cannot handle modern software. Who should pick the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB? Any user who needs a current, active GPU with 16 GB of memory, high bandwidth, and modern feature support. Its PassMark G3D score of 22618 and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 4019 demonstrate it is a capable, modern graphics solution, despite the misleading low scores in some PassMark sub-tests. The choice is not a trade-off; it is a foregone conclusion based on the data.