NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon HD 6550D videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 840M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 72% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 600 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 32 nm
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 vs 401
- Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 151 vs 131
- 4.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5771 vs 1316
- Around 51% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 vs 1382
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 vs 1975
- Around 51% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 vs 1382
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 vs 1975
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 12 March 2014 vs 30 June 2011 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 32 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 vs 401 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 vs 131 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 vs 1316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 vs 1382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 vs 1975 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 vs 1382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 vs 1975 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6550D
- Around 4% higher pipelines: 400 vs 384
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3324 vs 3191
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3324 vs 3191
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 400 vs 384 |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3324 vs 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3324 vs 3191 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6550D
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 | 401 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 | 131 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 | 1316 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.594 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 | 1382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 | 1975 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 | 3324 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 | 1382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 | 1975 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 | 3324 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 840M | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Terascale 2 |
| Code name | GM108 | Llano |
| Launch date | 12 March 2014 | 30 June 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 1235 | 1237 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 400 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 1000 Million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
| Shared memory | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
