AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 860M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500, and the results are decisive in favor of the discrete workstation card. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 860M scores 22759, while the Radeon PRO W7500 reaches 58213. That is a delta of 60.9% in favor of the PRO W7500. The margin is substantial, indicating a fundamental difference in compute throughput that goes beyond simple clock speed advantages.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The Radeon 860M posts 30043 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon PRO W7500 delivers 68634. The delta here is 56.2%, still a commanding lead for the discrete card. Interestingly, the integrated Radeon 860M performs relatively better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, suggesting its architecture handles the Vulkan API with greater efficiency relative to its raw specifications. The database records zero wins for the Radeon 860M across these two tests, with both victories going to the Radeon PRO W7500.

The average benchmark score field offers additional context. The Radeon 860M holds an average of 26401, while the Radeon PRO W7500 averages 16415. This inversion is notable: the PRO W7500 wins both head-to-head tests decisively, yet its overall average across all recorded benchmarks is lower. That discrepancy stems from the PRO W7500's inclusion of older DirectX 10, 11, and 9 tests where it scores 65, 125, and 200 respectively, dragging down its aggregate. The Radeon 860M's average is built only from its two Geekbench results, which are both strong relative to the broader GPU population.

The percentile data confirms the positioning. The Radeon 860M sits at the 72nd percentile against all GPUs, while the Radeon PRO W7500 ranks at the 59th percentile. In other words, the integrated part places higher in the overall distribution despite losing every direct comparison. This suggests the Radeon 860M's benchmark profile is concentrated in modern API workloads where it performs admirably, whereas the PRO W7500's profile includes legacy tests that penalize its standing.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7500 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so the use-case split must be inferred from the broader benchmark suite and architectural characteristics. The PRO W7500's 58213 OpenCL score indicates strong compute throughput for OpenCL-accelerated applications, which in practice covers rendering, simulation, and scientific workloads. Its 68634 Vulkan result reinforces that strength in Vulkan-based games and compute applications. The card also records a Passmark G3D score of 13368 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 5910, giving it a rounded profile across graphics and compute test suites.

The Radeon 860M's strengths are more situational. Its 30043 Vulkan score, while far below the PRO W7500's 68634, still represents a respectable absolute figure for an integrated GPU. The 860M's 22759 OpenCL score similarly holds up well when compared to its immediate rivals in the database. Its nearest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26421 average (a 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26331 (a 0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26553 (a 0.6% delta). These deltas are all within 1.1%, meaning the 860M trades blows with a range of discrete and integrated parts from both vendors.

The PRO W7500's nearest rivals tell a different story. It sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408 average), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16361), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504). The tight clustering of these averages, all within 0.5% of each other, indicates that the PRO W7500 occupies a crowded performance tier where small differences in workload composition can flip the ranking. The 860M, by contrast, operates in a tier where its rivals span a wider range of capabilities.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share AMD ownership but diverge sharply in design philosophy. The Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, meaning it is an integrated graphics processor designed to share system memory. The Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its codename is Hotpink Bonefish, and it belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, also within the Navi III Series.

The transistor counts and die sizes reinforce the gulf between them. The Radeon 860M's transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown, but its status as an IGP on a 4 nm process implies a compact implementation. The Radeon PRO W7500 carries 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. That density figure places the PRO W7500's design in a specific efficiency class, though the 860M's density cannot be compared directly because its die data is absent from the database.

The architectural generation gap matters. RDNA 3.5 is a refinement of RDNA 3.0, and the 860M benefits from that newer iteration. However, the raw resource counts tell a different story. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. That is 3.5 times the shading units, 3.5 times the TMUs, 4 times the ROPs, and 3.5 times the ray tracing cores. The PRO W7500's advantage in raw execution resources explains its benchmark dominance despite being one generation older architecturally.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The Radeon 860M's FP16 throughput is listed as 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes half-precision and full-precision at the same rate. The Radeon PRO W7500's FP16 throughput is 24.37 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its FP32 rate when working in half precision. That ratio difference suggests the PRO W7500 is better suited to workloads that leverage FP16 acceleration, while the 860M's 1:1 ratio makes it a more balanced but lower-throughput part.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show substantial divergence across nearly every measurable field. The Radeon 860M operates at a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the Radeon PRO W7500 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The 860M's boost clock is nearly double the PRO W7500's, but its base clock is less than half. The PRO W7500's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the 860M's memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared," because it depends entirely on the host system's RAM.

Memory configuration is one of the most consequential differences. The Radeon 860M has system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 860M's bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system's memory architecture, which introduces variability that dedicated VRAM eliminates. The PRO W7500's fixed 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent performance regardless of the host platform.

The power and physical specifications differ as well. The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W and is an integrated GPU with no power connectors and no slot width beyond its IGP designation. The Radeon PRO W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, is a single-slot card, and also requires no power connectors, though it does list a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the PRO W7500 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The PRO W7500 measures 216 mm in length, 115 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the 860M has no listed dimensions because it is integrated into a mobile processor package.

The release dates differ by roughly 18 months. The Radeon PRO W7500 launched on 2023-08-02, while the Radeon 860M launched on 2025-02-28. The PRO W7500 lists a launch MSRP of 429 USD, while the 860M has no launch MSRP because it is an integrated part sold as part of a larger processor. The PRO W7500's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the 860M's predecessor is the Navi II IGP. Both are listed as active production parts with no successors recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins both recorded comparisons. It beats the Radeon 860M by 60.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 56.2% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon 860M has a higher average benchmark score of 26401, while the Radeon PRO W7500 averages 16415. This is despite the PRO W7500 winning every direct comparison, because its average includes older DirectX tests with lower scores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Radeon PRO W7500 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated GPU. The Radeon PRO W7500 has a 70 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How do their percentile rankings differ?

A: The Radeon 860M sits at the 72nd percentile against all GPUs, while the Radeon PRO W7500 ranks at the 59th percentile. The 860M's higher percentile reflects its strong modern API scores despite losing every head-to-head test.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The Radeon PRO W7500 is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark, with margins of 60.9% in OpenCL and 56.2% in Vulkan. Its 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 ray tracing cores, and 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a structural advantage that the 860M's higher boost clock cannot overcome. The PRO W7500's 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS confirms the compute gap. For workloads that demand sustained OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, or consistent memory bandwidth, the PRO W7500 is the appropriate choice.

The Radeon 860M is not without merit. Its 72nd percentile ranking against all GPUs exceeds the PRO W7500's 59th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 26401 is higher than the PRO W7500's 16415. The 860M's 15 W TDP makes it suitable for battery-constrained portable devices, and its 3000 MHz boost clock shows it can reach high frequencies when power and thermal headroom allow. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, GeForce RTX 5060, and Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, all within 1.1% of its average score. That places the 860M in a competitive tier for integrated graphics.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the use case. The Radeon PRO W7500, launched at 429 USD, is a desktop workstation card with dedicated memory, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and a single-slot form factor. It targets professional applications that require consistent compute performance and multi-display output. The Radeon 860M is an integrated mobile GPU with no standalone purchase path, no dedicated memory, and display outputs that depend on the host device. It targets lightweight productivity and gaming on thin-and-light laptops where power consumption is the primary constraint.

The database records zero wins for the 860M in direct comparison. Anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance should select the PRO W7500. Anyone constrained by power, portability, or the absence of a discrete GPU slot should rely on the 860M, accepting its substantial performance deficit in exchange for a 15 W TDP and integration into a mobile processor. The PRO W7500's 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU requirement make it a non-option in devices that cannot accommodate a discrete card. The data does not suggest any scenario where the 860M outperforms the PRO W7500 in raw speed, only scenarios where its integration and efficiency make it the only viable option.