AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics solutions. The AMD Radeon 860M wins both recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a single advantage in an API-specific test that is not part of the direct comparison.

In OpenCL workloads, the 860M records a score of 22759 against 18268 for the Pro Vega 16, a 24.6% advantage. That gap widens considerably in Vulkan, where the 860M posts 30043 versus 21832, a 37.6% lead. Both tests favor the newer integrated part decisively.

The Pro Vega 16 does hold one notable strength: its Metal score of 29650. This is a macOS-oriented API benchmark, and the database shows no comparable Metal result for the 860M. For users operating in Apple's ecosystem, the Pro Vega 16's Metal performance is its primary selling point. However, this advantage does not translate into any head-to-head win in the available comparison data.

The 860M's average benchmark score stands at 26401, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The Pro Vega 16 averages 23250, sitting at the 68th percentile. The 860M outperforms its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, by 0.1% (26421 versus 26401), and it actually edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 by 0.3% (26331 versus 26401). The Pro Vega 16 lands within 0.1% of the NVIDIA P106-100 (23249) and trails the AMD Radeon RX 6600M by 0.1% (23273 versus 23250).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations and fabrication processes. The Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip built on RDNA 3.5, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip based on GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process gap alone explains much of the efficiency and clock behavior.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 860M runs at a 600 MHz base and boosts to 3000 MHz, while the Pro Vega 16 operates at 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. Despite the Pro Vega 16's higher base clock, the 860M's boost ceiling is more than 2.5 times higher, which drives its performance advantage in sustained workloads.

The compute configuration is counterintuitive at first glance. The Pro Vega 16 packs 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, exactly double the 860M's 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Yet the 860M still wins because its RDNA 3.5 architecture extracts far more work per shader at much higher clock speeds. The 860M also includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the Pro Vega 16 has none.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The 860M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of dedicated HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the Pro Vega 16 a massive memory bandwidth advantage in absolute terms, though it does not overcome the 860M's compute throughput.

Feature support also diverges. The 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro Vega 16 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 860M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Pro Vega 16 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power consumption favors the 860M at 15 W TDP versus 75 W for the Pro Vega 16, a fivefold difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases. The Radeon 860M is 24.6% faster in OpenCL and 37.6% faster in Vulkan than the Pro Vega 16. It achieves this while drawing one-fifth the power (15 W versus 75 W) and using a newer architectural foundation. Its percentile ranking (72nd versus 68th) and higher average score (26401 versus 23250) reinforce this conclusion.

Users should choose the Radeon 860M for general compute, Vulkan-based gaming, and any workload where power efficiency matters. It also has the advantage of ray tracing support, which the Pro Vega 16 lacks entirely. The 860M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can handle modern gaming features that the older part cannot.

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 remains relevant only in one specific scenario: macOS environments where Metal performance is the priority. Its Metal score of 29650 is strong, and no comparable Metal data exists for the 860M. Users locked into Apple's ecosystem with software that relies on Metal acceleration may still find the Pro Vega 16 serviceable. Additionally, the Pro Vega 16's dedicated 4 GB HBM2 memory with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth could benefit workloads that require high-bandwidth local memory rather than shared system memory.

For everyone else, the 860M is the superior part. It wins both direct comparisons, offers better API support, consumes far less power, and sits on a more modern manufacturing process. The Pro Vega 16's higher base clock, double compute units, and dedicated memory do not translate into real-world wins in the recorded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M scores 22759 in OpenCL versus 18268 for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, a 24.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 16 have any benchmark where it outperforms the 860M?

A: The Pro Vega 16 records a Metal score of 29650, but the database has no Metal result for the 860M, so no direct comparison is possible. In the two head-to-head tests, the 860M wins both.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP, while the Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP, making the 860M five times more power-efficient in terms of thermal design power.

Q: How does the memory setup differ between the two?

A: The 860M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Radeon 860M has ray tracing cores (8 of them). The Radeon Pro Vega 16 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 860M averages 26401 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Pro Vega 16 averages 23250. The 860M sits in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, the Pro Vega 16 in the 68th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result establishes the 860M's baseline advantage. At 22759 versus 18268, the 860M leads by 24.6%. This margin is substantial for integrated graphics facing a dedicated mobile GPU, and it reflects the architectural efficiency of RDNA 3.5 over GCN 5.0 at similar workload types. The Pro Vega 16's higher shading unit count (1024 versus 512) cannot compensate for the 860M's 3000 MHz boost clock versus 1190 MHz.

The Vulkan result widens the gap further. The 860M scores 30043 against 21832, a 37.6% lead. This larger margin suggests that Vulkan's lower-level API overhead favors the newer architecture more strongly. The 860M's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the Pro Vega 16's Vulkan 1.3 may also contribute to better driver-level optimization and feature utilization.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the 860M's average score of 26401 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26421) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26331). It also trails the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary by 0.6% (26553) and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 by 1.1% (26683). These comparisons show the 860M competing with much larger discrete GPUs despite its integrated nature and 15 W power envelope.

The Pro Vega 16's average of 23250 places it essentially tied with the NVIDIA P106-100 (23249, 0% difference). It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6600M by 0.1% (23273) and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X by 0.1% (23276). The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 leads it by 0.3% (23315). The Pro Vega 16's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score, indicating that it sits in a crowded performance tier where small differences matter little.

The 860M's wins are decisive in both available comparisons. A 24.6% OpenCL lead and a 37.6% Vulkan lead are not marginal results. They represent a generational leap in efficiency and throughput. The Pro Vega 16's Metal score, while strong at 29650, does not appear in the head-to-head table, so it cannot offset the two recorded losses.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The 860M uses the Krackan Point chip on RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip on GCN 5.0. The manufacturing process is 4 nm TSMC for the 860M versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries for the Pro Vega 16.

Clock speeds show the 860M's advantage: 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost versus 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. The Pro Vega 16's memory runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective speed, but this applies to its dedicated HBM2, while the 860M's memory is system shared.

Compute unit counts favor the Pro Vega 16 in raw numbers: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the 860M adds 8 ray tracing cores, which the Pro Vega 16 lacks entirely. The 860M achieves a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s, while the Pro Vega 16 manages 38.08 GPixel/s and 76.16 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M versus 2.437 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 16. In FP16, the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Pro Vega 16 delivers 4.874 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, giving it a theoretical advantage in half-precision workloads.

Power and interface specifications also diverge. The 860M has a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Pro Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Both are integrated parts with portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support favors the 860M with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 16 stops at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Production status and release timing differ as well. The 860M is active, released on 2025-02-28, with the Navi II IGP as its predecessor. The Pro Vega 16 is end-of-life, released on 2018-11-13, with no listed predecessor or successor. The 860M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, while the Pro Vega 16 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation for Vega Series.