AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between these two AMD GPUs is unusually lopsided, but not for the reason one might expect. The AMD Radeon 760M has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has no benchmark entries in the database at all. This absence of data for the newer part makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible, so the analysis must instead rely on architectural specifications, compute capabilities, and the relative positioning of the 760M within the broader GPU landscape.

The Radeon 760M's recorded benchmarks show a clear profile for an integrated graphics processor. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 400 points. Geekbench results are notably stronger: 20,255 in OpenCL and 30,336 in Vulkan. Passmark results split across API generations, with DirectX 9 scoring 65, DirectX 11 scoring 52, DirectX 12 scoring 25, and DirectX 10 scoring 19. The Passmark G3D score is 5,310, while the GPU compute score sits at 2,840, and the G2D score reaches 890. The average benchmark score across all tests is 6,019, placing the 760M at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The nearest rivals for the 760M provide context for its performance tier. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001, a delta of 0.3% above the 760M. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M also averages 6,000, again 0.3% higher. Interestingly, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server averages 5,996, which is 0.4% below the 760M, a surprising result given the professional positioning of that card. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049, sitting 0.5% above the 760M. These tight deltas, all within half a percentage point, indicate that the 760M performs in a very narrow band around the 6,000-point average mark, with no dominant rival among its closest neighbors.

For the Radeon AI PRO 9600D, the database lists zero benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of zero. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a placeholder based on its specifications rather than measured performance. This means the data cannot show where the 9600D wins or loses in head-to-head tests, because no tests have been recorded. What the data does show is the enormous theoretical gap between the two parts based on their compute specifications, which are detailed in the architecture section below.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built for entirely different roles. The Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, classified under the Navi III IGP generation. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors packed into a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture, classified under the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) generation. It is also manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The 9600D thus more than doubles the transistor count and die area of the 760M, with a modestly higher density.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster operation units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The 9600D has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. That is six times the shading units, six times the TMUs, six times the ROPs, and six times the ray tracing cores. These multipliers are consistent across the board, indicating a straightforward scaling of the GPU architecture rather than a rebalanced design.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2,599 MHz. The 9600D has a base clock of 1,080 MHz, a boost clock of 2,020 MHz, and a game clock of 1,080 MHz. The 760M actually boosts higher, but the 9600D starts from a higher base and maintains a higher sustained game clock. The lower boost ceiling on the 9600D likely reflects power and thermal constraints of a dedicated card versus an integrated part.

Memory is where the two diverge most fundamentally. The 760M uses system shared memory, with system shared type, bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s and a memory clock of 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The 9600D also lists its memory bandwidth explicitly, while the 760M's bandwidth cannot be quantified without knowing the host system's memory configuration.

The power profiles reflect their form factors. The 760M has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The 9600D has a TDP of 150 W, is a single-slot card with one 16-pin power connector, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The 9600D also has physical dimensions of 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 19 mm in width, while the 760M has no recorded dimensions since it is integrated into a motherboard.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 760M has no tensor cores listed, and the 9600D also has no tensor cores listed. The 760M's display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the 9600D has one DisplayPort 2.1a output.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins in scenarios where integrated graphics are the only option. Its 15 W TDP means it can operate in thin-and-light laptops or compact systems without discrete power delivery. Its system shared memory approach allows it to draw from the host system's RAM, eliminating the need for dedicated VRAM allocation. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is sufficient for an IGP, and the motherboard-dependent display outputs mean it adapts to whatever ports the host system provides. The 760M's higher boost clock of 2,599 MHz compared to the 9600D's 2,020 MHz suggests it can reach higher peak frequencies when power and thermal headroom allow, which may benefit bursty workloads.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins in scenarios requiring sustained compute throughput and dedicated memory. Its 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is approximately 4.66 times the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 387.8 GTexel/s is about 4.66 times the 760M's 83.17 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 193.9 GPixel/s is about 4.66 times the 760M's 41.58 GPixel/s. These consistent ratios indicate that the 9600D delivers roughly 4.66 times the raw throughput of the 760M across all measured compute dimensions.

The 9600D's 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for workloads that exceed the system memory bandwidth available to an IGP. The 760M's memory bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it is limited by the host platform's memory channels and speed. The 9600D's dedicated 256-bit bus provides predictable, high-bandwidth access that the 760M cannot match regardless of the host system.

The 9600D also wins on interface and connectivity. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides significantly more bandwidth for data transfer between the GPU and the host system compared to the 760M's PCIe 4.0 x8. Its single DisplayPort 2.1a output supports modern display standards, while the 760M relies on whatever outputs the motherboard provides. The 9600D's 48 ray tracing cores versus the 760M's 8 ray tracing cores gives it a substantial advantage in ray-traced workloads, with six times the ray tracing hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 760M has recorded benchmark scores with an average of 6,019, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, so a direct comparison of measured performance is not possible.

Q: What is the compute performance difference between the two?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, approximately 4.66 times the 5.323 TFLOPS of the Radeon 760M. The texture rate and pixel rate show the same 4.66x ratio.

Q: How does memory differ between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 760M has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a 150 W TDP, requires one 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores listed.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score of 6,019 is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, and NVIDIA Quadro P2000, with deltas ranging from 0.4% above to 0.5% below.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every major specification category except for manufacturer, process node, foundry, and API support.

| Specification | AMD Radeon 760M | AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Phoenix | Navi 48 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Phoenix) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 53,900 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 357 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 151.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 1080 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2599 MHz | 2020 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1080 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 32 | 192 |

| ROPs | 16 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 41.58 GPixel/s | 193.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.17 GTexel/s | 387.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.323 TFLOPS | 24.82 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| Dimensions | None recorded | 241 mm x 111 mm x 19 mm |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2025-12-10 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Radeon Pro Vega |

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU designed for systems where a discrete card is not an option. Its 15 W TDP, system shared memory, and motherboard-dependent outputs make it suitable for compact or power-constrained platforms. Its benchmark scores place it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 6,019 that sits within half a percentage point of its nearest rivals. The 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8 ray tracing cores provide a baseline level of graphics capability that is appropriate for an IGP.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D is a discrete, single-slot card with specifications that place it in a different performance class entirely. Its 24.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 48 ray tracing cores represent approximately 4.66 times the compute throughput of the 760M across every measured dimension. Its 150 W TDP, 16-pin power connector, and 450 W suggested PSU indicate it requires a dedicated power delivery system. The 9600D's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and DisplayPort 2.1a output are modern standards that the 760M cannot match.

The database records no benchmark scores for the 9600D, so its 50th percentile ranking is a specification-based placeholder rather than a measured result. The 760M's 35th percentile ranking is based on actual benchmark data. This asymmetry means the 9600D's performance advantage is inferred from its specifications, not confirmed by recorded tests. The data does confirm, however, that the two GPUs are not competitors in the same market segment. The 760M serves systems requiring integrated graphics with minimal power draw, while the 9600D serves workloads requiring dedicated memory, high bandwidth, and sustained compute throughput. The choice between them is determined by the host system's form factor and power delivery capabilities, not by performance equivalence.