AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two GPUs is starkly asymmetrical. The AMD Radeon 860M, an integrated graphics processor, has recorded scores in two separate tests, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300, a data center accelerator, has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible, but the available data still reveals a clear performance hierarchy.

The Radeon 860M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. Its average benchmark score across these tests is 26,401. The Instinct MI300, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0, with no tests listed. The database places the 860M in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, while the MI300 sits at the 50th percentile, a ranking that reflects the absence of recorded measurements rather than any actual performance comparison.

The closest rivals to the 860M provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 posts an average score of 26,421, which is 0.1% lower than the 860M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331, a 0.3% deficit. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary achieves 26,553, putting it 0.6% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 leads the group at 26,683, a 1.1% advantage over the 860M.

What this means for the head-to-head is that the 860M, despite being an IGP with a 15 W thermal design power, holds its own against discrete mobile and desktop GPUs in synthetic compute workloads. The margin between the 860M and the MX550 is negligible at 0.1%, effectively a statistical tie. The gap to the RTX A4000, a workstation card, is also small at 1.1%. These figures indicate that the 860M's integrated design does not preclude it from competitive compute performance.

The Instinct MI300 offers no such comparison points. Its hardware specifications suggest a different class of device, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot quantify its compute output. The result is a head-to-head section that is one-sided by necessity: the 860M has measurable wins, while the MI300 has no recorded data to contest them.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with verifiable performance metrics. Its average benchmark score of 26,401, combined with a 72nd percentile ranking, establishes it as a functional and competitive graphics solution. The Instinct MI300, with an average score of 0 and no benchmarks in the database, cannot be recommended on the basis of measured performance.

From the recorded data, the 860M is suited for systems where integrated graphics must handle general compute and graphics tasks without a discrete card. Its Geekbench scores, 22,759 in OpenCL and 30,043 in Vulkan, show solid synthetic performance. The MI300, as a data center part with a 600 W TDP, 128 GB of HBM3 memory, and 47.87 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, clearly targets high-throughput workloads, but the absence of benchmark results means the database offers no evidence of its real-world behavior.

The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the 860M outperforms the MI300 in terms of recorded benchmark availability and percentile standing. The MI300's 50th percentile rank, derived from no actual scores, does not reflect a performance deficit; it reflects a lack of information. Buyers or system integrators looking for quantified performance should rely on the 860M's numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 860M wins in every category where the database has recorded measurements. It has a nonzero average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, and documented API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its compact IGP form factor, 15 W TDP, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable and low-power devices.

The Instinct MI300 wins in the raw specification sheet, though not in measured performance. It uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, built on a 5 nm process with a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. Its 128 GB of HBM3 memory across an 8192-bit bus delivers 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput of 47.87 TFLOPS dwarfs the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. The MI300 also has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, compared to 512 and 32 on the 860M, respectively.

However, the MI300 has no display outputs, no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support listed, and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The 860M, with 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, is the only one of the two that can drive a display. In a use-case split, the 860M wins for graphics output and consumer compute, while the MI300 wins for theoretical compute density, but only on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300 has an average score of 0.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 860M is in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, and the Radeon Instinct MI300 is in the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 in average score?

A: The Radeon 860M scores 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which has an average score of 26,331.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Radeon Instinct MI300?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus width and a bandwidth of 6.55 TB/s.

Q: Does the Radeon 860M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Radeon 860M supports Vulkan version 1.4, along with DirectX 12 Ultimate and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for these GPUs?

A: The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, and the Radeon Instinct MI300 has a TDP of 600 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a chip codenamed Krackan Point. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The Radeon Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a chip codenamed Aqua Vanjaram. Its generation is listed as Radeon Instinct (MIx).

The process nodes differ by one nanometer, with the 860M on the smaller 4 nm node. The MI300's die is massive at 1017 mm², containing 153,000 million transistors, which translates to a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no direct density comparison is possible.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units and 880 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores listed. The MI300's pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, while the 860M produces 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,496.0 GTexel/s for the MI300 versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M. Floating point performance shows the MI300 at 47.87 TFLOPS FP32 and 383.0 TFLOPS FP16 (8:1), while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Memory systems are fundamentally different. The 860M uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent. The MI300 has dedicated 128 GB of HBM3 memory on an 8192-bit bus, providing 6.55 TB/s of bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the 860M runs at a 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost, while the MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, with memory at 1600 MHz or 6.4 Gbps effective.

Power and connectivity further separate the two. The 860M draws 15 W, uses no power connectors, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI300 draws 600 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, has a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent; the MI300 has no outputs. API support also differs: the 860M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI300 lists none. Physical dimensions reflect their roles, with the MI300 measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the 860M has no listed dimensions as an integrated part.