AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell is a discrete workstation-class graphics card built on the GB202 chip, while the AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated GPU (IGP) from the Phoenix chip, designed for efficient mobile and compact systems. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the NVIDIA card winning all eight head-to-head tests, but the nature of that gap varies significantly by workload, revealing distinct use cases for each product. The RTX PRO 5000’s average benchmark score of 6407 places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 760M’s average of 6019 lands in the 35th percentile, a narrow overall margin that masks the enormous differences in individual test categories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic single result comes from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the RTX PRO 5000 scores 9579.5 against the Radeon 760M’s 400. That is a 2294.9% delta, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 24 times the performance in this modern, demanding DirectX 12 workload. This is the clearest indicator of raw rasterization and compute capability, and it sets the tone for the entire comparison. In practical terms, this score suggests the RTX PRO 5000 can handle high-resolution, feature-rich 3D scenes that would completely overwhelm the integrated solution.

Moving to legacy DirectX performance, the NVIDIA card maintains its dominance but with varying margins. In Passmark’s DirectX 10 test, the RTX PRO 5000 scores 175 versus 19, a 821.1% advantage. The DirectX 11 test shows a 321.2% lead (219 vs 52), while DirectX 12 narrows the relative gap to 212% (78 vs 25). Interestingly, the DirectX 9 test shows a 378.5% difference (311 vs 65). These numbers indicate that while the NVIDIA card is faster across all API generations, its advantage is most pronounced in newer, more complex rendering paths, whereas older, simpler APIs are less demanding on the AMD IGP’s limited resources.

The Passmark G3D score is another major differentiator. The RTX PRO 5000 posts 24310, which is 357.8% higher than the Radeon 760M’s 5310. This aggregate 3D graphics test reinforces the 3DMark result, confirming that the NVIDIA card’s advantage extends beyond a single benchmark. For compute workloads, the Passmark GPU Compute test shows the RTX PRO 5000 at 15667 versus 2840, a 451.7% lead. This is significant because compute performance is critical for professional applications like rendering, simulation, and AI inference, areas where the RTX PRO 5000’s 440 tensor cores and 110 RT cores come into play.

The closest contest is in the Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics and basic desktop operations. Here, the RTX PRO 5000 scores 914, only 2.7% ahead of the Radeon 760M’s 890. This near-tie is notable because it shows that for everyday 2D tasks, the integrated GPU is essentially on par with the professional card, meaning the massive performance difference is concentrated entirely in 3D and compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 5000 wins every benchmark, but the magnitude of each win defines its strengths. It is overwhelmingly superior in 3D rendering, as shown by the 2294.9% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and the 357.8% lead in Passmark G3D. These results make it suitable for GPU-accelerated rendering, complex CAD models, and high-end visualization tasks where the Radeon 760M would struggle to maintain interactive frame rates. The 451.7% advantage in GPU compute further cements its position for professional workloads that offload heavy math to the GPU, such as scientific computing, video encoding, and machine learning inference. The RTX PRO 5000’s 72 GB of GDDR7 memory with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth versus the Radeon 760M’s system-shared memory is a structural advantage that directly supports these large-data applications.

The Radeon 760M’s only notable win is the near-tie in the G2D test, where it trails by just 2.7%. This indicates that for basic desktop productivity, office applications, and video playback, the integrated GPU is perfectly adequate. Its 15 W TDP versus the RTX PRO 5000’s 300 W also suggests a power efficiency advantage, though the fact pack does not provide direct power consumption measurements. The Radeon 760M’s wins are therefore not about raw performance but about being a low-power, integrated solution that eliminates the need for a discrete card in lightweight systems. Its 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while far below the RTX PRO 5000’s 66.94 TFLOPS, is still sufficient for casual gaming at modest settings and basic media creation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The RTX PRO 5000 uses NVIDIA’s Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 122.9 million per mm². In contrast, the Radeon 760M uses AMD’s RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a more advanced 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors on a much smaller 178 mm² die, yielding a higher transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The Radeon’s higher density reflects its integrated nature, packing a full GPU into a chip that also contains CPU cores.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX PRO 5000 has 14,080 shading units, 440 TMUs, and 160 ROPs, alongside 110 RT cores and 440 tensor cores. The Radeon 760M has just 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with only 8 RT cores and no tensor cores. This means the NVIDIA card has 27.5 times the shading units and 13.75 times the RT cores, explaining its massive lead in ray-traced and compute-heavy benchmarks. The FP32 throughput is 66.94 TFLOPS for the RTX PRO 5000 versus 5.323 TFLOPS for the Radeon 760M, a 12.6-fold difference. Both support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, but the NVIDIA card’s absolute numbers are far higher.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RTX PRO 5000 uses 72 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 760M relies on system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the AMD GPU’s performance is tied to the host system’s RAM speed and configuration, whereas the NVIDIA card has dedicated, high-speed VRAM. The RTX PRO 5000 also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and a 1x 16-pin power connector, while the Radeon 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and no power connectors, reflecting its IGP status. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the NVIDIA card’s 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs versus the Radeon’s motherboard-dependent outputs highlight their different deployment scenarios.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell is in a completely different performance class from the AMD Radeon 760M. For any user whose work involves 3D rendering, GPU compute, or professional visualization, the RTX PRO 5000 is the only choice. Its 2294.9% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 451.7% lead in GPU compute translate to usable performance where the Radeon 760M would be a bottleneck. The 72 GB GDDR7 memory capacity and 1.34 TB/s bandwidth are essential for handling large datasets and high-resolution textures that far exceed the Radeon’s system-shared memory.

The Radeon 760M is best suited for users who need a capable GPU without a discrete card. Its 2.7% deficit in 2D performance is negligible, and its 15 W TDP makes it ideal for thin-and-light laptops or compact desktops where power and space are constrained. The fact that it manages 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance from an integrated solution is respectable, and its 5310 Passmark G3D score is sufficient for light gaming and general media use. However, its 8 RT cores and lack of tensor cores mean it is not designed for serious ray tracing or AI workloads.

The RTX PRO 5000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M, with average scores of 6389 (0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (-1.1% delta). This grouping suggests that despite its massive individual benchmark wins, its average score is dragged down by the low G2D result, placing it in a similar overall range as older mid-range cards. The Radeon 760M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001 (0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.4% delta), which is an odd pairing that reflects the integrated GPU’s specific performance profile. Ultimately, the choice is clear: buy the RTX PRO 5000 for professional-grade performance, or the Radeon 760M for an efficient, integrated solution.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX PRO 5000 in 3DMark Steel Nomad?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 scores 9579.5, which is 2294.9% higher than the Radeon 760M’s 400 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

Q: Is the Radeon 760M competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Radeon 760M is nearly competitive in the Passmark G2D test, scoring 890 versus the RTX PRO 5000’s 914, a difference of only 2.7%.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 has 72 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with a "System Dependent" bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 has 14,080 shading units, while the Radeon 760M has 512, a 27.5-fold difference.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 has a TDP of 300 W, while the Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 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.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell | AMD Radeon 760M |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1740 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2377 MHz | 2599 MHz |

| Memory Size | 72 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.34 TB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 512 |

| TMUs | 440 | 32 |

| ROPs | 160 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 110 | 8 |

| Tensor Cores | 440 | null |

| FP32 Performance | 66.94 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 300 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | Motherboard Dependent |