AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and AMD Radeon 860M represent two distinct design philosophies: a dedicated, end-of-life workstation card built for Apple MPX systems versus an active, power-sipping integrated GPU for mobile processors. The data shows the Radeon 860M edges out the Pro W5500X in average benchmark score, posting 26,401 against 27,973 for the Pro W5500X, though the comparison is complicated by differing test suites. The Pro W5500X holds a 73rd percentile rank among all GPUs, slightly above the 860M’s 72nd percentile, but the 860M’s higher raw scores in its own tests suggest a more modern architecture delivering comparable or better performance at a fraction of the power envelope. This is not a simple generational upgrade; it is a fundamental shift in what a GPU can achieve within a 15 W TDP versus a 125 W TDP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split: the Radeon Pro W5500X is the choice for legacy Mac Pro workstation environments requiring a dedicated, dual-slot card with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory and a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its Geekbench Metal score of 27,973 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883), indicating it remains competitive in Metal-based workloads despite its 2019 release. The Radeon 860M, by contrast, is the superior pick for modern mobile platforms, leveraging RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm node to achieve a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043 and an OpenCL score of 22,759, with an average of 26,401 that sits just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421). For users prioritizing portability, battery life, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, the 860M is the data-driven winner; for those needing a proven, dedicated workstation GPU with dedicated VRAM, the Pro W5500X remains relevant only in its niche.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro W5500X wins decisively in raw compute throughput per the specifications. Its FP32 performance of 5.398 TFLOPS is 75.7% higher than the 860M’s 3.072 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s dwarfs the 860M’s 96.00 GTexel/s. The Pro W5500X also leads in pixel rate at 56.22 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 17.1% advantage. These figures make it the stronger choice for GPU-bound rendering tasks, especially those leveraging OpenGL 4.6 or Vulkan 1.4, where its higher shader count (1,536 vs. 512) and TMU count (96 vs. 32) provide a substantial workload advantage. The dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory also eliminates reliance on system RAM, a critical factor for large datasets.

The Radeon 860M wins in architectural efficiency and modern feature support. Its 4 nm process node versus the Pro W5500X’s 7 nm node, combined with a 15 W TDP versus 125 W, allows for a 3,000 MHz boost clock—70.7% higher than the Pro W5500X’s 1,757 MHz boost. This clock advantage, coupled with RDNA 3.5’s ray tracing cores (8 RT cores present on the 860M, none listed on the Pro W5500X), delivers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043 that outpaces the Pro W5500X’s best single-test result. The 860M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Pro W5500X’s DirectX 12 (12_1), making it the only one of the two fully compliant with the latest gaming and compute APIs. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the Pro W5500X’s Apple MPX bus, is universally compatible with modern motherboards.

Architecture Differences

The core architectural gulf between these two GPUs is generational. The Radeon Pro W5500X is built on RDNA 1.0, AMD’s first-generation RDNA architecture, using a 7 nm TSMC process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². It features 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor core hardware. Its memory subsystem is a dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 pool on a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP16 performance is listed at 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating a rate doubled from FP32.

The Radeon 860M is built on RDNA 3.5, a much newer architecture, using a 4 nm TSMC process. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, but it packs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs into an integrated design. Critically, it includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro W5500X. Its memory is system-shared, meaning bandwidth is system-dependent rather than fixed. The FP16 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), identical to its FP32, which is a notable divergence from the Pro W5500X’s 2:1 FP16 ratio. The 860M also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro W5500X uses the proprietary Apple MPX bus interface, limiting the latter to specific Mac Pro chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher peak clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a boost clock of 3,000 MHz, which is 70.7% higher than the Radeon Pro W5500X’s boost clock of 1,757 MHz. The 860M’s base clock is also lower at 600 MHz versus 1,187 MHz, showing a wider dynamic range.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro W5500X support ray tracing?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists no ray tracing cores for the Radeon Pro W5500X. The Radeon 860M, in contrast, includes 8 ray tracing cores, making it the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing support.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401, while the Radeon Pro W5500X has an average of 27,973. Despite the 860M’s higher individual Vulkan score of 30,043, the Pro W5500X’s single Metal score of 27,973 is higher than the 860M’s average, indicating the Pro card performs better in its specific test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500X has a fixed memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s from its 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory, so its bandwidth is listed as system-dependent and cannot be quantified from the FACT PACK.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon Pro W5500X has a pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s, which is 17.1% higher than the Radeon 860M’s 48.00 GPixel/s. The Pro card’s higher ROP count (32 vs. 16) contributes to this advantage.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Radeon Pro W5500X is fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC process. The 860M’s process is more advanced, allowing for higher clock speeds at a much lower TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is not available in the FACT PACK, so the comparison relies on each GPU’s individual test results and nearest rival deltas. The Radeon Pro W5500X’s sole benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 27,973. This score places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839). It also leads the AMD Radeon RX 7800M by 0.3% (27,883) but trails the AMD FirePro S7150 by 0.5% (28,117). These deltas are exceptionally tight, all within a 1% band, indicating the Pro W5500X is a stable, mid-high-tier performer in Metal workloads.

The Radeon 860M presents two benchmark scores: Geekbench OpenCL at 22,759 and Geekbench Vulkan at 30,043, with an average of 26,401. Its Vulkan score is 32.0% higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting a strong optimization for Vulkan’s modern API. Against nearest rivals, the 860M trails the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 by a negligible 0.1% (26,421) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary by 0.6% (26,553), while leading the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 by 0.3% (26,331) and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 by 1.1% (26,683). The largest delta is the 1.1% lead over the RTX A4000, demonstrating the 860M’s competitiveness against far more power-hungry discrete cards.

The biggest single-score win for the 860M is its Vulkan result of 30,043, which exceeds the Pro W5500X’s Metal score of 27,973 by 7.4%. However, this comparison is across different APIs and should not be read as a direct performance equivalence. The Pro W5500X’s lead in theoretical throughput—5.398 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.072 TFLOPS—suggests it would win in compute-heavy, non-Vulkan workloads, but the 860M’s higher clock speed and ray tracing capabilities give it the edge in modern, API-optimized scenarios. The data ultimately shows two GPUs trading victories based on workload, with the Pro W5500X winning on raw fill rates and the 860M winning on architectural efficiency and API compliance.