AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 in terms of average benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded average benchmark score and sits in the 50th percentile, making direct numerical comparison impossible from the database.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process with the Krackan Point chip, while the Radeon PRO W7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process with the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish). The 860M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), whereas the PRO W7400 is a discrete single-slot card.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and compute resources?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has significantly more: 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Radeon 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The 860M's boost clock is nearly three times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both also use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the Radeon 860M wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,759, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 30,043. The PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores, so the 860M holds the only measurable performance advantage in the database.

The PRO W7400 wins on dedicated memory and fixed hardware resources. It provides 8 GB of GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 860M relies on system-shared memory. The PRO W7400 also has more than three times the shading units (1,792 vs 512), 3.5 times the TMUs (112 vs 32), four times the ROPs (64 vs 16), and 3.5 times the ray tracing cores (28 vs 8). These resource advantages translate into higher theoretical pixel and texture rates: 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s for the PRO W7400 versus 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M.

The 860M counters with a much higher boost clock (3000 MHz vs 1100 MHz), a smaller process node (4 nm vs 6 nm), and a much lower TDP (15 W vs 55 W). For systems where power draw and heat are primary constraints, the 860M is clearly favored.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Radeon 860M uses RDNA 3.5, a refinement of AMD's graphics architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation and is designed for Strix Point Mobile platforms, meaning it is integrated directly into a mobile processor. The chip is Krackan Point, and the database lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP.

The Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0, the earlier version of the same architecture family, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III Series) and carries the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The chip is Navi 33, a discrete design with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². Its predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega.

The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 6 nm. The 860M uses the newer, denser process, which helps explain its much higher boost clock (3000 MHz vs 1100 MHz) despite a dramatically lower TDP (15 W vs 55 W). The PRO W7400 compensates with a much larger chip and far more execution resources.

The 860M is an IGP with no dedicated memory and no power connectors. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot discrete card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), and width of 20 mm (0.8 inches).

Specification Differences

The database lists several specification fields where the two GPUs differ clearly:

• Process node: 4 nm (860M) vs 6 nm (PRO W7400)
• Transistors: unknown (860M) vs 13,300 million (PRO W7400)
• Die size: unknown (860M) vs 204 mm² (PRO W7400)
• Transistor density: null (860M) vs 65.2M / mm² (PRO W7400)
• Base clock: 600 MHz (860M) vs 330 MHz (PRO W7400)
• Boost clock: 3000 MHz (860M) vs 1100 MHz (PRO W7400)
• Memory clock: System Shared (860M) vs 1350 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective (PRO W7400)
• Memory size: System Shared (860M) vs 8 GB (PRO W7400)
• Memory type: System Shared (860M) vs GDDR6 (PRO W7400)
• Memory bus width: System Shared (860M) vs 128 bit (PRO W7400)
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent (860M) vs 172.8 GB/s (PRO W7400)
• Shading units: 512 (860M) vs 1,792 (PRO W7400)
• TMUs: 32 (860M) vs 112 (PRO W7400)
• ROPs: 16 (860M) vs 64 (PRO W7400)
• RT cores: 8 (860M) vs 28 (PRO W7400)
• Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s (860M) vs 70.40 GPixel/s (PRO W7400)
• Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s (860M) vs 123.2 GTexel/s (PRO W7400)
• FP32 performance: 3.072 TFLOPS (860M) vs 7.885 TFLOPS (PRO W7400)
• FP16 performance: 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) (860M) vs 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) (PRO W7400)
• TDP: 15 W (860M) vs 55 W (PRO W7400)
• Slot width: IGP (860M) vs Single-slot (PRO W7400)
• Power connectors: None (860M) vs None (PRO W7400)
• Suggested PSU: null (860M) vs 250 W (PRO W7400)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (860M) vs 4x DisplayPort 2.1 (PRO W7400)
• Dimensions: null (860M) vs 168 mm 6.6 inches length, 69 mm 2.7 inches height, 20 mm 0.8 inches width (PRO W7400)
• Release date: 2025-02-28 (860M) vs 2025-08-02 (PRO W7400)

Both GPUs share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Radeon 860M and the Radeon PRO W7400. However, the Radeon 860M has two recorded benchmark scores: 22,759 in Geekbench OpenCL and 30,043 in Geekbench Vulkan. These scores combine for an average benchmark score of 26,401.

The Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmarks and an average benchmark score of 0. The database shows zero wins for each GPU in head-to-head testing.

The theoretical compute figures favor the PRO W7400 heavily. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is more than 2.5 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s beats the 860M's 48.00 GPixel/s by roughly 47 percent. Its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s beats the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s by roughly 28 percent.

The 860M's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its measured performance. It sits within 0.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (average score 26,421), 0.3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (average score 26,331), 0.6 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (average score 26,553), and 1.1 percent behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (average score 26,683). These tiny deltas place the 860M in a tightly packed performance band.

The PRO W7400 has no nearest rivals listed, meaning the database offers no comparative anchor for its measured performance.

The Verdict

The data presents two very different GPUs serving different roles. The Radeon 860M is an integrated solution for mobile platforms, built on the newer 4 nm process with a 15 W TDP and boost clock of 3000 MHz. Its measured benchmark scores (22,759 OpenCL, 30,043 Vulkan) place it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. It uses system-shared memory and has no dedicated video memory, making it dependent on the host system's RAM for bandwidth.

The Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory at 172.8 GB/s, 1,792 shading units, and 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It has a 55 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. Its 50th percentile ranking reflects the absence of recorded benchmark scores, not necessarily inferior performance.

For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, dedicated memory bandwidth, and high pixel/texture fill rates, the PRO W7400's specifications are clearly superior. Its FP32 figure is more than double the 860M's, and its dedicated GDDR6 memory avoids the variable performance of system-shared memory.

For mobile or low-power systems where the 15 W TDP and integrated form factor are mandatory, the Radeon 860M is the only viable choice. Its measured benchmark scores confirm it delivers competitive performance within its power envelope, matching or nearly matching several discrete GPUs in the database.

The release dates also matter: the 860M launched on 2025-02-28, while the PRO W7400 launched on 2025-08-02. The PRO W7400 is the newer product but represents a different class (discrete workstation) versus the 860M's integrated mobile design.

Choose the Radeon 860M for integrated, power-efficient systems with measured benchmark validation. Choose the Radeon PRO W7400 for discrete, memory-rich compute tasks where the 8 GB GDDR6 and higher theoretical throughput are decisive. The database supports both conclusions based on the recorded specifications and scores.