AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and the AMD Radeon 760M are both integrated graphics solutions from AMD, separated by roughly five years of silicon development and two complete architectural eras. The recorded data shows the 760M winning every head-to-head benchmark by enormous margins, yet the database's aggregate scoring tells a more complicated story, one that buyers comparing used and current hardware should understand before choosing between them.

The Verdict

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In the only two tests where both parts have recorded scores, the Radeon 760M dominates: it leads by 63.3 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and 77 percent in Geekbench Vulkan. Those are not close contests, and the verdict for anyone choosing a machine for graphics work, gaming, or compute is straightforward: the 760M is the only sensible pick of the two.

The complicating factor is the database's aggregate view. The Vega 8 Mobile carries an average benchmark score of 7203 and sits at the 39th percentile against all GPUs, while the 760M averages 6019 and sits at the 35th percentile. This apparent contradiction comes from the composition of the underlying test suites rather than from the two chips trading blows: the Vega 8 Mobile has only two recorded Geekbench results, while the 760M's average is pulled down by a set of Passmark DirectX component scores and other tests that use different scales. The percentile figure therefore reflects the database population as a whole, not the direct matchup. When the same test is run on both parts, the 760M wins every time.

There is one narrow scenario where the Vega 8 Mobile remains relevant: it is an end-of-life part from 2019 found in older portable hardware, and it offers full OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3 support for legacy workloads. For anything purchased new today, the 760M, an active product, is the clear choice. It also does this at a lower rated power draw of 15 W versus 25 W.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two integrated GPUs is as wide as AMD's entire mobile GPU journey from GCN to modern RDNA. The Vega 8 Mobile is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture, codenamed Raven-M, and belongs to the Vega IGP generation known as Raven Ridge-M. It was fabbed by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, packs 4,940 million transistors onto a 210 mm² die, and carries a transistor density of 23.5M per square millimetre.

The Radeon 760M is a different animal entirely. Its Phoenix chip uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation, and is manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm node. It squeezes 25,390 million transistors into a smaller 178 mm² die, yielding a density of 142.6M per square millimetre, more than six times the Vega part's density.

Curiously, the raw shader counts are identical: both GPUs have 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. The differences emerge everywhere else. The 760M doubles the render output units, 16 versus 8, and includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature the Vega 8 Mobile lacks entirely. Clock behavior diverges sharply too. The Vega 8 Mobile runs from a 300 MHz base to a 1101 MHz boost, while the 760M spans 800 MHz to 2599 MHz. The higher clocks plus doubled ROPs produce a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s against 8.808 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s against 35.23 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput tells the same story. The Vega 8 Mobile delivers 1,127.4 GFLOPS of FP32 and 2.255 TFLOPS of FP16 via a 2:1 half-rate arrangement. The 760M posts 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 5.323 TFLOPS in FP16 at a full 1:1 rate, meaning it does not lose half-precision throughput the way the older design does.

Software support has also moved on. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the 760M targets DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2) with Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Vega 8 Mobile is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both share system memory with bandwidth that is system dependent, so neither carries its own VRAM pool. Bus interfaces differ in name only in practice: the Vega part is listed simply as an IGP while the 760M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. Neither requires power connectors, both being integrated designs.

Where Each One Wins

The 760M wins every contested benchmark in the database, so the use-case split is really about how large the gap is and where the 760M's extra features matter. In GPU compute workloads, the OpenCL result of 20,255 versus 7,435 makes the 760M the obvious platform for OpenCL-accelerated applications, and its full-rate FP16 suits modern inference and media pipelines in a way the Vega design cannot match. In graphics API throughput, the Vulkan score of 30,336 versus 6,970 is the single largest gap in the dataset, indicating that any Vulkan-native engine or application will feel dramatically different on the newer part.

The 760M's ray tracing cores give it a capability the Vega 8 Mobile simply does not have, and its higher pixel fill rate, nearly five times that of the Vega part, is the resource most stressed by modern rendering at typical laptop display resolutions. Its 15 W TDP versus 25 W also means it delivers this performance in a tighter thermal envelope.

The Vega 8 Mobile's wins are contextual rather than benchmark-based. It exists in older, end-of-life portable hardware, so it remains the GPU you get if you are evaluating a legacy Raven Ridge-M machine. It supports Vulkan 1.3 and OpenGL 4.6, which covers a broad range of older software, and its database percentile of 39, slightly above the 760M's 35, reflects the composition of its recorded tests rather than superior performance in shared workloads. On the evidence of the head-to-head data, it has no winning scenario against the 760M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The Radeon 760M, decisively. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, leading by 63.3 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and 77 percent in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Why does the Vega 8 Mobile show a higher average benchmark score and percentile if it loses every head-to-head?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile's average of 7203 comes from only two Geekbench results, while the 760M's 6019 average includes ten results across Passmark, 3DMark, and Geekbench tests with very different scoring scales. The percentile figures (39 versus 35) therefore reflect test-suite composition, not direct performance, and the shared tests all favor the 760M.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shader units?

A: Yes, both have 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The 760M compensates with far higher clocks (up to 2599 MHz versus 1101 MHz), double the ROPs (16 versus 8), and ray tracing cores, producing 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: Based on rated TDP, the 760M at 15 W draws less power than the Vega 8 Mobile at 25 W while delivering substantially higher performance in the recorded benchmarks.

Q: Can either GPU do ray tracing?

A: Only the 760M, which has 8 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 3.0 design and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The Vega 8 Mobile has no ray tracing hardware and tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Are these still available in new products?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile is end-of-life, released in January 2019. The 760M, released January 2024, is an active product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in the database with results for both parts, and both are landslides.

The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The Vega 8 Mobile scores 7,435; the Radeon 760M scores 20,255. That is a 63.3 percent gap in the 760M's favor, which in practical terms means compute workloads that offload to OpenCL complete in a fraction of the time on the newer chip. For reference, the Vega 8 Mobile's OpenCL score places it in the neighborhood of parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 in the database's rival clustering, while the 760M sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M by its own average.

The second is Geekbench Vulkan, and it is even more lopsided. The Vega 8 Mobile manages 6,970; the 760M reaches 30,336, a 77 percent margin. Vulkan throughput tracks closely with modern game engine performance, so this result is the best single indicator in the dataset of how differently the two parts handle current graphics software. Combined with the 760M's 8.7-fold pixel-rate advantage (41.58 versus 8.808 GPixel/s) and its doubled ROP count, the Vulkan result suggests the older part would struggle where the newer one remains usable.

The final tally in the database reads two wins for the 760M and zero for the Vega 8 Mobile. The 760M's broader recorded results reinforce the picture: 5,310 in Passmark G3D, 2,840 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 890 in Passmark G2D, alongside a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 400. None of these have a direct Vega counterpart recorded, but the pattern across every shared and adjacent metric is consistent. The 760M is the faster, more feature-complete, and more efficient integrated GPU, and the only argument for the Vega 8 Mobile is circumstance: it is what lives inside the older machines where it was originally installed.