AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 860M and AMD Radeon Pro W5700 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet the benchmark data reveals a compelling comparison between a modern integrated processor and a workstation-class discrete card. The Radeon Pro W5700 dominates in raw compute, but the 860M’s architectural advancements and efficiency metrics tell a different story. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Pro W5700 leading by substantial margins, though the 860M’s newer RDNA 3.5 design raises questions about generational efficiency that the benchmarks alone cannot answer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 74,613, while the AMD Radeon 860M manages only 22,759. This represents a 69.5% deficit for the integrated chip, meaning the Pro W5700 delivers over three times the raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly but remains lopsided: the Pro W5700 achieves 70,706 against the 860M’s 30,043, a 57.5% difference. These are not close contests; the discrete card’s 2304 shading units versus the 860M’s 512 explain the magnitude of the separation.

What makes this interesting is the context. The 860M’s average benchmark score of 26,401 places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro W5700’s 25,726 average sits in the 71st percentile. The two cards are statistically near-identical in aggregate performance, yet the head-to-head tests show the Pro W5700 winning by huge margins. The discrepancy stems from the test suites: the 860M’s scores come from only two Geekbench runs, while the Pro W5700’s average includes ten tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute workloads. The integrated part benefits from a narrower test selection, while the discrete card’s broader profile drags its average down.

The Pro W5700’s wins are not just numerical; they are structural. Its 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarfs the 860M’s 3.072 TFLOPS, a 2.8x advantage. Texture rate tells a similar story: 270.7 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 120.3 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. Every throughput metric in the FACT PACK favors the Pro W5700, and the benchmark deltas reflect this hardware reality. The 860M cannot close a gap that stems from a 4.5x difference in shading units and a 4.5x difference in TMUs.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 score so much higher in Geekbench Vulkan despite the Radeon 860M having newer architecture?

A: The Pro W5700’s 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs provide raw parallel throughput that the 860M’s 512 shading units and 32 TMUs cannot match. The 860M’s RDNA 3.5 architecture improves efficiency per transistor, but the Pro W5700’s 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die simply overwhelm the integrated part’s smaller implementation.

Q: Is the Radeon 860M competitive with the Radeon Pro W5700 in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Pro W5700 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by 69.5% and 57.5% respectively. The 860M has zero benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, though its average score of 26,401 is actually higher than the Pro W5700’s 25,726 average when considering all available tests.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 860M’s average score of 26,401 puts it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421), 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331), and 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26,683) by 1.1%. These are all near-parity results, indicating the 860M sits in a tightly packed performance band.

Q: What does the Radeon Pro W5700’s closest rival comparison reveal?

A: The Pro W5700’s 25,726 average is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25,633), and roughly 0.4-0.5% behind both the AMD FirePro D700 (25,842) and AMD FirePro W7100 (25,856). The Pro W5700 is essentially locked in a dead heat with several very different cards.

Q: Why is the Radeon 860M’s average benchmark score higher than the Radeon Pro W5700’s if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The average scores are computed from different test sets. The 860M has only two Geekbench results (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the Pro W5700 has ten results including multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9-12, G2D, G3D, compute). The Pro W5700’s low Passmark DirectX scores (54 for DirectX 12, 88 for DirectX 10) drag its average down, while the 860M’s limited test pool avoids those weaker results.

Q: Can the Radeon 860M’s 15 W TDP be considered an advantage over the Pro W5700’s 205 W TDP?

A: The data supports this interpretation. The 860M consumes 15 W versus the Pro W5700’s 205 W, a 13.7x difference in power draw. Yet the 860M achieves 72nd percentile performance versus the Pro W5700’s 71st percentile. This suggests the integrated chip delivers comparable overall standing with dramatically lower power requirements, though not comparable raw performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the clear choice for raw compute workloads. Its 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) performance, combined with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus providing 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, make it suited for professional rendering, scientific simulation, and GPU-accelerated tasks that demand sustained throughput. The 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and USB Type-C outputs support multi-monitor workstation setups, and the dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors indicates a card built for dedicated compute environments. Its 64 ROPs and 144 TMUs handle high-resolution texture work and pixel-heavy operations that would bottleneck the 860M.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP means it requires no power connectors and fits as an IGP in mobile or compact systems. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the Pro W5700’s x16, is sufficient for an integrated part that shares system memory. The 860M’s 8 ray tracing cores provide hardware RT support that the Pro W5700 completely lacks, making it the better option for ray-traced workloads in games or visualization. Its 3000 MHz boost clock, though lower than the Pro W5700’s 1880 MHz in absolute terms, is remarkable for a 15 W part and suggests excellent clock-for-clock efficiency. For users who need a capable GPU without dedicating a PCIe slot, power budget, or cooling solution, the 860M is the practical choice.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process, while the Pro W5700 uses 7 nm, both from TSMC. The 860M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, whereas the Pro W5700 has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die with a density of 41.0M/mm². Clock speeds show the 860M at a 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost, versus the Pro W5700’s 1400 MHz base and 1880 MHz boost. Memory is entirely different: the 860M uses system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth, while the Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts diverge sharply: the 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Pro W5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 860M includes 8 ray tracing cores; the Pro W5700 has none. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s for the 860M versus 120.3 GPixel/s for the Pro W5700, and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s versus 270.7 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1). Power draw is 15 W versus 205 W. The 860M is an IGP with no power connectors; the Pro W5700 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent versus 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. Dimensions: the 860M has none listed; the Pro W5700 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The Radeon 860M uses RDNA 3.5, the latest iteration in AMD’s RDNA line, built on a 4 nm process. The Radeon Pro W5700 uses RDNA 1.0, the original RDNA architecture, on a 7 nm process. This represents a significant leap in design philosophy: RDNA 3.5 focuses on efficiency and feature support, while RDNA 1.0 prioritized raw throughput. The 860M’s generation is listed as "Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile)" with the chip codename Krackan Point, indicating a mobile-first design. The Pro W5700’s generation is "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi Series)" with the Navi 10 chip, a desktop workstation part.

DirectX support differs: the 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro W5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the 860M supports the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set including ray tracing, while the Pro W5700 misses those features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The 860M’s FP16 performance is 1:1 with FP32, indicating unified throughput, while the Pro W5700’s FP16 is 2:1, meaning it halves FP32 rate for FP16 work. The 860M’s 8 ray tracing cores are a hardware feature absent from the Pro W5700 entirely. The production status also differs: the 860M is Active, released 2025-02-28, while the Pro W5700 is End-of-life, released 2019-11-18. The 860M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the Pro W5700’s is Radeon Pro Vega.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the choice for users who need maximum compute throughput. Its 69.5% OpenCL and 57.5% Vulkan advantages over the 860M are decisive, and its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth removes any dependency on system memory performance. The 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs provide the muscle for professional workloads, and the 17.33 TFLOPS FP16 performance (2:1) is suited for AI-adjacent tasks that leverage reduced precision. The Pro W5700’s 120.3 GPixel/s pixel rate and 270.7 GTexel/s texture rate ensure it can handle high-resolution rendering without bottlenecking. Its end-of-life status and 205 W TDP are drawbacks, but for raw performance, the benchmark data is unambiguous.

The AMD Radeon 860M is the choice for efficiency-driven systems. Its 15 W TDP, 4 nm process, and RDNA 3.5 architecture deliver 72nd percentile performance while consuming a fraction of the Pro W5700’s power. The 8 ray tracing cores provide a feature the Pro W5700 lacks entirely, and the 3000 MHz boost clock demonstrates remarkable clock scaling. The 860M’s system-shared memory and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface make it a flexible option for laptops and compact desktops, though its 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 16 ROPs limit it to lighter workloads. The 860M’s active production status and 2025 release date mean it will receive ongoing driver support, unlike the end-of-life Pro W5700. For users who prioritize portability, low power draw, and modern features like ray tracing over raw compute, the 860M is the rational pick. For everyone else, the Pro W5700’s benchmark dominance makes it the performance leader, despite its age and power appetite. The 860M’s higher average score (26,401 vs 25,726) is a statistical artifact of test selection, not a sign of superior capability — the head-to-head results are the definitive measure, and they show the Pro W5700 winning by margins that no architectural refinement can overcome.