AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M records an average benchmark score of 6019, while the AMD Radeon 610M averages 5444. The 760M outperforms the 610M by a margin of approximately 10.6% based on these recorded averages.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon 760M scores 20255, which is 346.6% higher than the AMD Radeon 610M's score of 4535. This represents a significant computational advantage for the 760M in general-purpose compute workloads.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M achieves a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353. The 760M leads by 377.5% in this API test, indicating a substantial graphics throughput advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has a boost clock of 2599 MHz, whereas the AMD Radeon 610M has a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The 760M also has a lower base clock at 800 MHz compared to the 610M's 1500 MHz.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The 760M's smaller node contributes to higher transistor density and efficiency.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has 512 shading units and 8 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 610M has 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores. The 760M has four times the shading units and four times the ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is listed as Active in production, while the AMD Radeon 610M is marked as End-of-life. The 610M's successor is listed as Navi III IGP, which corresponds to the 760M's generation.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon 610M represent two distinct generations of AMD integrated graphics. The 760M is based on the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. In contrast, the 610M uses the Mendocino chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile) generation. This generational leap is the primary driver of the performance gap between the two.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The 760M is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 178 mm² and a transistor count of 25,390 million, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The 610M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 100 mm², though its transistor count and density are not recorded in the database. The smaller node and higher transistor density of the 760M allow for more compute resources within a similar power envelope.

Both GPUs share the same 15 W TDP, which is notable given the 760M's substantially larger compute configuration. The 760M integrates 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The 610M, by comparison, has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. This is a 4x difference in shading units, TMUs, and ray tracing cores, and a 4x difference in ROPs.

Clock behavior also differs. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, while the 610M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The 610M starts at a higher base frequency, but the 760M's boost clock is substantially higher, allowing it to reach far greater peak throughput when thermals and power allow.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The 760M lists its display outputs as motherboard dependent, while the 610M lists portable device dependent outputs, reflecting their respective target platforms.

The 610M's predecessor is Vega II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP, which aligns with the 760M's generation. The 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, directly linking the two as consecutive generations in AMD's integrated GPU lineup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon 610M. In both tests, the 760M wins decisively. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the 760M scoring 20255 against the 610M's 4535. This is a delta of 346.6% in favor of the 760M. The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the 760M scoring 30336 against the 610M's 6353, a delta of 377.5%. The 760M wins both head-to-head comparisons, with a total win count of 2 versus 0 for the 610M.

These results indicate that the 760M's advantage is consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan APIs. The Vulkan delta is slightly larger than the OpenCL delta, suggesting the 760M's architectural improvements in graphics workloads are even more pronounced than in general compute. The 760M's higher boost clock, larger shading unit count, and RDNA 3.0 architecture all contribute to these outcomes.

In the broader context of the database, the 760M holds a 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the 610M sits at the 32nd percentile. The 760M's average benchmark score of 6019 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001, +0.3% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, +0.3% delta). It is also close to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, +0.4% delta), though slightly behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, -0.5% delta). This indicates the 760M performs in the range of dedicated discrete GPUs from previous generations.

The 610M's average score of 5444 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, -0.4% delta), AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, +0.5% delta), AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, -0.7% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, -1% delta). These comparisons show that while the 610M is positioned lower in the database, it still competes with older discrete mobile GPUs.

The performance gap between the two integrated GPUs is substantial. The 760M's average score is roughly 10.6% higher than the 610M's, but the head-to-head API tests show a much larger gap of 346.6% to 377.5%. This discrepancy suggests that the average benchmark score may include a broader mix of tests where the 610M performs relatively better, while the Geekbench tests specifically highlight the 760M's strengths in modern compute and graphics APIs.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU in every measured category. It achieves higher scores in both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score, and holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its architecture is newer, its process node is smaller, and its compute resources are significantly more numerous.

The 760M is the appropriate choice for users who need integrated graphics with strong compute performance and modern API support. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20255 and Vulkan score of 30336 demonstrate that it can handle demanding workloads that would strain the 610M. The 760M's 4 nm process and RDNA 3.0 architecture also suggest it will remain relevant for a longer period, especially given its Active production status.

The 610M, while end-of-life, still has a place in the database. Its lower power characteristics, combined with a 15 W TDP matching the 760M, make it a viable option for basic graphics tasks. Its average benchmark score of 5444 is not negligible, and its nearest rivals include older discrete GPUs like the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R7 M440, meaning it can handle light workloads adequately. However, for any application that benefits from higher shading unit counts, ray tracing support, or modern architecture features, the 760M is the clear choice.

For users constrained to the 610M, the data shows it is still capable of running basic graphics and compute tasks, but it will fall far behind the 760M in heavy workloads. The 760M's fourfold advantage in shading units and ray tracing cores, combined with its much higher boost clock, makes it the recommended option for integrated graphics users who prioritize performance. The 610M's End-of-life status further reinforces the 760M as the forward-looking choice.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon 610M:

• Chip: Phoenix (760M) versus Mendocino (610M)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (760M) versus RDNA 2.0 (610M)
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Phoenix) (760M) versus Navi II IGP (Mendocino Mobile) (610M)
• Process Node: 4 nm (760M) versus 6 nm (610M)
• Transistors: 25,390 million (760M) versus not recorded (610M)
• Die Size: 178 mm² (760M) versus 100 mm² (610M)
• Transistor Density: 142.6M / mm² (760M) versus not recorded (610M)
• Base Clock: 800 MHz (760M) versus 1500 MHz (610M)
• Boost Clock: 2599 MHz (760M) versus 1900 MHz (610M)
• Shading Units: 512 (760M) versus 128 (610M)
• TMUs: 32 (760M) versus 8 (610M)
• ROPs: 16 (760M) versus 4 (610M)
• RT Cores: 8 (760M) versus 2 (610M)
• Pixel Rate: 41.58 GPixel/s (760M) versus 7.600 GPixel/s (610M)
• Texture Rate: 83.17 GTexel/s (760M) versus 15.20 GTexel/s (610M)
• FP32: 5.323 TFLOPS (760M) versus 486.4 GFLOPS (610M)
• FP16: 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) (760M) versus 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) (610M)
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent (760M) versus Portable Device Dependent (610M)
• Production Status: Active (760M) versus End-of-life (610M)
• Release Date: 2024-01-30 (760M) versus 2022-09-19 (610M)
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP (760M) versus Vega II IGP (610M)
• Successor: Not recorded (760M) versus Navi III IGP (610M)
• Average Benchmark Score: 6019 (760M) versus 5444 (610M)
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 35 (760M) versus 32 (610M)
• Geekbench OpenCL: 20255 (760M) versus 4535 (610M)
• Geekbench Vulkan: 30336 (760M) versus 6353 (610M)

Both GPUs share the following specifications: 15 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, system shared memory, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.