AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon 860M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data confirms this with stark numerical differences. The head-to-head benchmark suite is empty, meaning no direct comparative tests were run between these two parts. However, the individual benchmark data and specification sheets provide a basis for analysis.

The MI325X reports zero benchmark scores in the database, leaving its average benchmark score at 0. This places it in the 50th percentile against all GPUs. The Radeon 860M, in contrast, has two recorded tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,759, and its Vulkan score is 30,043, resulting in an average benchmark score of 26,401. This places the 860M in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, a full 22 percentile points higher than the MI325X.

The sheer scale of the compute difference is the defining characteristic. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The MI325X is roughly 26.6 times faster in raw FP32 throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story: the MI325X produces 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate is even more extreme, as the MI325X has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the 860M produces 48.00 GPixel/s.

The Radeon 860M's nearest rivals in the database are all mobile or mid-range desktop parts. It sits within a very tight performance band. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 averages 26,421, putting the 860M just 0.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 averages 26,331, with the 860M 0.3% ahead. Against the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, the 860M trails by 0.6% (that card averages 26,553), and against the NVIDIA RTX A4000, it trails by 1.1% (26,683 average). The 860M's average score of 26,401 sits squarely in this cluster, indicating it competes directly with these parts despite being an integrated processor.

The MI325X has no nearest rivals listed, no wins, and no losses in head-to-head tests. Its role in the database is defined by its specifications alone, not by comparative benchmark results. The data shows that the MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all listed as N/A), and a power target of 1000 W. The Radeon 860M is an integrated GPU with full API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The recorded data indicates that direct comparison is not meaningful for gaming or graphics workloads. The MI325X cannot render frames, while the 860M is designed for exactly that task. The MI325X's strength is in raw computational throughput for data-center workloads, where its 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth and 8192-bit bus width provide massive data movement capability. The 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, a fundamental architectural limitation for memory-intensive tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M boosts to 3000 MHz, while the AMD Instinct MI325X boosts to 2100 MHz. The 860M's base clock is 600 MHz, and the MI325X's base clock is 1000 MHz.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401. It is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421), 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331), 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553), and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26,683).

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each GPU?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The AMD Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The MI325X is approximately 26.6 times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI325X support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: No. The MI325X lists all three APIs as N/A. It has no display outputs. The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, providing 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: What are the power requirements for each part?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU rating of 1400 W. It uses an OAM module slot width and requires no power connectors. The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, uses an IGP slot width, and also requires no power connectors. Its suggested PSU is not listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD products is fundamental. The MI325X uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Krackan Point chip, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. Its transistor count, die size, and transistor density are all listed as unknown in the database.

The MI325X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 860M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The MI325X's predecessor is listed as Radeon Instinct, and the 860M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09, and the 860M on 2025-02-28.

Compute unit organization differs sharply. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. It has no RT cores listed. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The MI325X has no rasterization hardware, confirming its role as a pure compute accelerator. The 860M has full rasterization and ray tracing capabilities, confirming its role as a graphics processor.

The memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI325X uses dedicated HBM3e memory with a fixed 256 GB capacity and a 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M relies on system-shared memory, with its capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The MI325X's memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the 860M's memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared."

The bus interface also differs. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Radeon 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent. The MI325X's pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, and the 860M's is 48.00 GPixel/s. The texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI325X and 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M.

The production status differs as well. The MI325X has no production status listed, while the 860M is listed as active. The MI325X has no successor listed, and neither does the 860M. The MI325X's FP16 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), and the 860M's FP16 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS (also 1:1).

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable field. The process node differs: the MI325X uses 5 nm, the Radeon 860M uses 4 nm. The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors, while the 860M's count is unknown. The MI325X's die size is 1017 mm², the 860M's is unknown. The MI325X's transistor density is 150.4M per mm², the 860M's is not listed.

Clock speeds differ. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The Radeon 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. Neither has a game clock listed. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the MI325X and system-shared for the 860M.

Memory specifications are entirely different. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The 860M has system-shared memory with system-dependent bus width and bandwidth.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ: 19,456 vs 512 shading units, 1,216 vs 32 TMUs, and 0 vs 16 ROPs. The 860M has 8 RT cores; the MI325X has none listed. Pixel rates are 0 MPixel/s vs 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 2,553.6 GTexel/s vs 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are 81.72 TFLOPS vs 3.072 TFLOPS in both cases.

TDP differs massively: 1000 W for the MI325X, 15 W for the 860M. The MI325X uses an OAM Module slot width, the 860M uses IGP. The MI325X has a suggested PSU of 1400 W; the 860M has none listed. Both use no power connectors. Bus interfaces are PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI325X and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 860M.

Display outputs are "No outputs" for the MI325X and "Portable Device Dependent" for the 860M. API support is N/A for the MI325X and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for the 860M. The MI325X has no dimensions listed, and neither does the 860M. The MI325X has no production status, while the 860M is active. Release dates are 2024-10-09 for the MI325X and 2025-02-28 for the 860M.

The Verdict

The data presents two processors with no overlapping use cases. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a data-center compute accelerator. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 256 GB HBM3e memory, and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth target large-scale parallel computation. Its lack of display outputs, graphics APIs, and ROPs confirms it is not intended for rendering. The absence of benchmark scores and nearest rivals in the database reflects its specialized role.

The AMD Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices. Its 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 8 RT cores, and full API support indicate a part designed for gaming and general graphics workloads. Its benchmark results place it in the 72nd percentile, competitive with discrete mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 and RTX 5060, with deltas of -0.1% and +0.3% respectively.

A user needing rendering, display output, or gaming support should select the Radeon 860M. A user needing massive parallel compute throughput for AI or scientific workloads should select the Instinct MI325X. The 15 W TDP of the 860M suits battery-powered devices. The 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU of the MI325X require dedicated server infrastructure. The MI325X's 0% win rate in head-to-head tests and its 50th percentile standing reflect an absence of comparable gaming data, not a failure of compute capability. The 860M's 72nd percentile and its tight cluster of rival scores indicate a well-positioned integrated GPU. The choice between these two is determined entirely by workload requirements, not by relative performance.