AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon 860M Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350X and AMD Radeon 860M represent opposite ends of the graphics hardware spectrum, one a massive datacenter compute accelerator and the other a mobile integrated processor. The MI350X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and a 50th percentile ranking, while the 860M delivers a 72nd percentile ranking based on two recorded OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. This places the 860M ahead of roughly three-quarters of all tracked GPUs, whereas the MI350X sits squarely in the middle of the distribution despite its enormous theoretical compute capabilities. The absence of any benchmark results for the MI350X means its percentile ranking is derived from its specifications alone, not from measured performance data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in every measurable category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark outcomes. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043 combine for an average benchmark score of 26,401. These results place it within a narrow band of competitors, including the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (0.1% behind the 860M), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26,331 (0.3% ahead of the 860M), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26,553 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 at 26,683 (1.1% behind). The 860M's Vulkan score of 30,043 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the RDNA 3.5 architecture handles Vulkan workloads particularly well relative to OpenCL.

The AMD Instinct MI350X, by contrast, has zero benchmark entries and a zero average benchmark score, meaning the database contains no verified performance measurements for this accelerator. Its theoretical specifications are extreme, with 16,384 shading units and 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, but no actual workload results confirm these translate into real-world performance. The 860M, with only 512 shading units and 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, has demonstrated performance through concrete measurements. The MI350X wins in architectural capability and raw throughput on paper, but the 860M wins in every recorded benchmark comparison because no such comparisons exist for the MI350X.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is fundamental. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation under the Radeon Instinct predecessor line, whereas the 860M is part of the Navi III IGP generation under the Strix Point Mobile family, succeeding the Navi II IGP. The MI350X chip is designated MI350 256CU, while the 860M uses the Krackan Point chip.

The MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs, which explains its 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. Its texture rate reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, producing a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The MI350X reports no ray tracing cores, while the 860M includes eight.

Memory architecture separates these two dramatically. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The 860M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance relies entirely on the host platform's memory configuration. The MI350X's FP32 and FP16 compute both register at 72.09 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two products, so direct comparisons must rely on the 860M's recorded scores and the MI350X's absence of scores. The 860M's Geekbench OpenCL result of 22,759 and Vulkan result of 30,043 are the only concrete performance numbers available. The Vulkan score exceeds the OpenCL score by 7,284 points, a 32% improvement within the same chip, indicating strong driver optimization for Vulkan APIs on the RDNA 3.5 architecture.

Against its nearest rivals, the 860M's average score of 26,401 places it in a tight cluster. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421, just 0.1% higher, making the two essentially equivalent in these workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331, 0.3% lower than the 860M, while the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 leads the group with 26,683, 1.1% above the 860M. The MI350X has no comparable scores, so its performance relative to these products cannot be quantified from the database.

The FP32 throughput difference is stark on paper: the MI350X claims 72.09 TFLOPS versus the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS, a 23.5x ratio. Texture rate shows a similar gap, with the MI350X at 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s, a 23.5x difference as well. These theoretical numbers suggest the MI350X should dominate any compute-heavy workload, but without benchmark verification, the database cannot confirm this in practice.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI350X have no benchmark scores while the AMD Radeon 860M has two?

A: The database contains zero benchmark entries for the MI350X, giving it an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking. The 860M has two recorded entries, Geekbench OpenCL at 22,759 and Geekbench Vulkan at 30,043, producing an average score of 26,401 and a 72nd percentile ranking.

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

A: The 860M's average score of 26,401 sits between the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26,331 (0.3% lower). The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553 (0.6% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26,683 (1.1% higher).

Q: Which architecture uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The MI350X uses a 3 nm process node, while the 860M uses a 4 nm process node. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the MI350X's process is one step smaller.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each product?

A: The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance depends on the host platform.

Q: Does the Radeon 860M support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, as it is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs.

Q: What is the power draw difference between these two products?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W. The MI350X uses an OAM module slot with no power connectors specified, and the 860M is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors listed.

Specification Differences

The MI350X and 860M differ across nearly every specification field. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture with an MI350 256CU chip, while the 860M uses RDNA 3.5 with a Krackan Point chip. The process node is 3 nm for the MI350X and 4 nm for the 860M, both from TSMC. The MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die with a density of 77.7M per mm², while the 860M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 2200 MHz with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and boost clock of 3000 MHz with system shared memory. The MI350X's memory configuration includes 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, whereas the 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources show a wide gap: the MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, while the 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 860M adds 8 ray tracing cores, which the MI350X does not list. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI350X versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the 860M, and texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute are both 72.09 TFLOPS for the MI350X and both 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M.

The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W and uses an OAM Module slot, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W and uses an IGP slot. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI350X and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 860M. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent. The MI350X measures 102 mm by 165 mm, while the 860M has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: the 860M launched on 2025-02-28, and the MI350X on 2025-06-11. The MI350X succeeds the Radeon Instinct, and the 860M succeeds the Navi II IGP.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. The AMD Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with measurable performance, delivering a 72nd percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 26,401 from OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its Vulkan score of 30,043 is notably stronger than its OpenCL score of 22,759, indicating a platform that favors Vulkan workloads. It sits in a tight competitive cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, RTX 5060, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and RTX A4000, all within 1.1% of each other.

The AMD Instinct MI350X offers staggering theoretical specifications: 16,384 shading units, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its 3 nm process, 185,000 million transistors, and 2380 mm² die represent a massive investment in compute density. However, the database records no benchmark scores for this accelerator, leaving its actual performance unverified. Its 50th percentile ranking, based solely on specifications, places it in the middle of the tracked GPU population, which is surprising given its extreme specs. The lack of graphics APIs and display outputs confirms its role as a pure compute accelerator.

For users seeking a mobile integrated GPU with verified performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the Radeon 860M is the choice, particularly given its low 15 W TDP and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For datacenter compute workloads where raw throughput is paramount, the MI350X presents the specifications for such tasks, but the absence of benchmark data means its real-world behavior cannot be confirmed from the database. The 860M wins on measured results, the MI350X on paper specifications.