AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs being compared in this analysis?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M, a mobile integrated graphics processor from the Krackan Point chip, and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X, a data center accelerator built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401, while the Radeon Instinct MI300X has no recorded benchmark scores, resulting in an average of 0.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two products?

A: The Radeon 860M is manufactured on a 4 nm process, while the Radeon Instinct MI300X uses a 5 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, whereas the Radeon Instinct MI300X features 192 GB of HBM3 memory with a 8192-bit bus and 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP range for these cards?

A: The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Radeon Instinct MI300X has a TDP of 750 W and a suggested PSU of 1150 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon 860M ranks in the 72nd percentile, while the Radeon Instinct MI300X sits at the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators represent fundamentally different design philosophies within AMD's product stack. The Radeon 860M is a RDNA 3.5 architecture part from the Navi III IGP generation, designed for mobile integration. It uses a 4 nm TSMC process and is integrated directly onto the Krackan Point chip. In contrast, the Radeon Instinct MI300X is a CDNA 3.0 architecture accelerator from the Radeon Instinct series, built on a 5 nm TSMC process with a massive 1017 mm² die size containing 153,000 million transistors. The transistor density stands at 150.4M per mm² for the MI300X, while the 860M's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Radeon 860M carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The Radeon Instinct MI300X features 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but has zero ROPs, reflecting its compute-focused design with no raster output stage. The MI300X has no ray tracing cores listed. The pixel rate for the 860M is 48.00 GPixel/s, while the MI300X is recorded at 0 MPixel/s. Texture rates are 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M and 2,553.6 GTexel/s for the MI300X.

Clock behavior reveals the design intent. The Radeon 860M runs at a 600 MHz base clock and boosts to 3000 MHz, typical for an integrated part prioritizing efficiency. The Radeon Instinct MI300X has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 2100 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 2525 MHz, translating to 10.1 Gbps effective. The 860M relies on system-shared memory for both capacity and bandwidth, while the MI300X uses dedicated HBM3 memory.

The API support separates the two clearly. The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a fully capable consumer graphics solution. The Radeon Instinct MI300X has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, consistent with its role as a compute accelerator rather than a rendering device. The bus interface also differs: the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MI300X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the 860M, while the MI300X has no display outputs at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are not available in the database, as the two products have no shared recorded test results. The Radeon 860M has two benchmark entries: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. These combine for an average benchmark score of 26,401. The Radeon Instinct MI300X has no benchmark entries, yielding an average score of 0 and no nearest rivals for comparison.

The Radeon 860M's performance profile can be assessed through its nearest rivals in the database. It sits virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, which has an average score of 26,421, a delta of -0.1% relative to the 860M. It is also nearly level with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which scores 26,331, a 0.3% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, putting the 860M 0.6% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 leads the group with 26,683, a 1.1% advantage over the 860M. These small deltas indicate the 860M delivers performance squarely in the range of these discrete desktop and workstation cards, despite being an integrated part.

The Vulkan score of 30,043 for the 860M is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 22,759, suggesting the architecture performs relatively better under the Vulkan API in this specific test. The average benchmark score of 26,401 places the 860M in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, a strong showing for an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP. The MI300X, with no recorded scores, cannot be positioned against any comparative performance data in the database.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between these two products is substantial across nearly every measurable field. The Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process, while the MI300X uses 5 nm. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz; the MI300X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. Memory is system-shared for the 860M with system-dependent bandwidth, while the MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: the 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The 860M achieves 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate, while the MI300X records 0 MPixel/s and 2,553.6 GTexel/s respectively. Floating point performance: the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16 at an 8:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The 860M has a 15 W TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP, an OAM Module slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 860M versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the 860M, while the MI300X has no outputs. API support exists only for the 860M, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI300X has no API entries. The 860M released on 2025-02-28, while the MI300X released on 2023-12-05. The 860M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the MI300X's predecessor is FirePro Data Center.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 860M wins in scenarios that demand broad API compatibility and low power consumption. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it suitable for consumer rendering workloads, gaming, and general-purpose graphics. The 15 W TDP allows deployment in thin-and-light portable devices where power budgets are tight. The 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with its near parity against discrete cards like the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 and RTX 5060, indicates it competes well in the entry-level discrete GPU space. The 3000 MHz boost clock supports responsive performance in burst workloads. Its 8 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a feature absent from the MI300X's recorded specifications.

The Radeon Instinct MI300X wins in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 performance is roughly 26 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 653.7 TFLOPS dwarfs the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. The 192 GB HBM3 memory with 10.3 TB/s bandwidth enables massive data sets to reside on the accelerator, eliminating the need for constant host transfers. The 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 19,456 shading units position it for large-scale parallel compute workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides higher host bandwidth than the 860M's PCIe 4.0 x8. The 1017 mm² die with 153,000 million transistors indicates a design optimized for maximum compute density rather than efficiency or display functionality.

The MI300X's zero ROPs and no display outputs clarify its role: it is not intended for any rasterization or display tasks. The 860M, with 16 ROPs and portable-device dependent outputs, handles those roles. The 860M also holds the advantage in process efficiency, using a smaller 4 nm node versus the 5 nm node of the MI300X, though the latter's transistor density of 150.4M per mm² is recorded.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no overlap in intended use. The Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics solution for mobile devices, delivering competitive performance against entry-level discrete GPUs. Its benchmark scores place it in the 72nd percentile, with an average score of 26,401. Its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at -0.1%, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at +0.3%, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at -0.6%, and NVIDIA RTX A4000 at -1.1%, all fall within a 1.1% band. This indicates the 860M performs at a level consistent with those products, despite its integrated nature and 15 W TDP.

The Radeon Instinct MI300X has no benchmark data in the database, so no performance positioning can be made from recorded results. Its specifications, however, describe a data center accelerator with 192 GB of HBM3 memory, 10.3 TB/s bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and 653.7 TFLOPS FP16. It has no display outputs, no ROPs, and no consumer API support, confirming its exclusive focus on compute acceleration. The 50th percentile ranking is based on its specification profile rather than measured performance.

For a user selecting between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. The Radeon 860M suits any task requiring graphics output, consumer API support, or low power consumption. Its benchmark results confirm it handles general GPU workloads effectively. The Radeon Instinct MI300X suits compute-intensive tasks that demand large memory capacity and extreme throughput, with no rendering or display requirements. The absence of benchmark scores for the MI300X means its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database, while the 860M's measured results provide concrete evidence of its capabilities. The 72nd versus 50th percentile ranking reflects this data availability as much as the inherent capabilities of each part.