AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 5700 Comparison

AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 5700

The database comparison places the AMD Radeon RX 5700, a 2019 discrete card built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, against the AMD Radeon 860M, a 2025 integrated graphics processor (IGP) using RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm node. The RX 5700 holds a commanding lead in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the 860M’s modern feature set and dramatically lower power profile make the choice less straightforward than raw scores suggest. The data shows two very different philosophies: one prioritizes raw throughput, the other efficiency and integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are limited to two tests, and the RX 5700 wins both by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5700 scores 69,603 against the 860M’s 22,759, a delta of 67.3% in favor of the discrete card. That is roughly three times the raw compute output, which aligns with the massive difference in shading units (2,304 versus 512) and texture units (144 versus 32). The RX 5700 also delivers nearly double the FP32 throughput at 7.949 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, so the OpenCL gap reflects the hardware disparity directly.

The Vulkan result narrows the gap slightly but remains decisive. The RX 5700 posts 64,166, while the 860M manages 30,043, a 53.2% difference. Interestingly, the 860M’s Vulkan score is 32% higher than its OpenCL score (30,043 versus 22,759), suggesting the RDNA 3.5 architecture handles modern APIs more efficiently relative to its older counterpart. The RX 5700, by contrast, scores slightly lower in Vulkan than OpenCL (64,166 versus 69,603), indicating the newer API does not unlock additional performance on the older architecture. This pattern hints that the 860M’s architectural improvements partially compensate for its smaller hardware footprint, though not enough to close the overall performance gap.

Notably, the 860M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26,401, which places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5700’s average is 22,170, putting it in the 67th percentile. This inversion, where the 860M has a higher average score but loses both head-to-head tests, stems from the benchmark suites used. The 860M’s average includes only two Geekbench tests (both high-scoring for its class), while the RX 5700’s average pulls in PassMark tests for DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus compute and 2D tests, many of which score lower relative to its peak. The RX 5700’s PassMark G3D score of 14,314, for instance, is strong but not as dominant as its Geekbench numbers, dragging its average down.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5700 wins every scenario where raw compute power is the primary requirement. Its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, enabled by 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, is a massive advantage over the 860M’s system-shared memory, where bandwidth is system dependent. For workloads like high-resolution gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU compute tasks that saturate memory, the RX 5700’s 7.949 TFLOPS FP32 and 248.4 GTexel/s texture rate provide headroom the 860M cannot approach. Its 110.4 GPixel/s pixel rate also doubles the 860M’s 48.00 GPixel/s, making it the clear choice for pushing high frame rates at demanding resolutions.

The 860M wins on efficiency and integration. Its TDP is 15 W versus the RX 5700’s 180 W, a twelve-fold difference. The 860M requires no power connectors and fits as an IGP, meaning it occupies no slot space and draws power from the host system. Its 4 nm process node versus 7 nm gives it a transistor density advantage per watt, though the exact transistor count is unknown for the 860M versus 10,300 million for the RX 5700. The 860M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5700 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), so the newer IGP can handle ray tracing hardware features (8 RT cores) that the RX 5700 lacks entirely. For portable devices, thin-and-light laptops, or systems where power draw and physical space are constraints, the 860M is functionally superior despite its lower performance ceiling.

The benchmark data supports this split. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 860M achieves 30,043, which is 88.5% of the RX 5700’s 64,166 in percentage terms, a smaller gap than the OpenCL delta. This suggests the 860M’s RDNA 3.5 architecture, with its 1:1 FP16 ratio (3.072 TFLOPS), is better optimized for modern graphics APIs than the RX 5700’s RDNA 1.0, which uses a 2:1 FP16 ratio (15.90 TFLOPS). The 860M also has a higher boost clock at 3000 MHz versus 1725 MHz, indicating the integrated design can scale frequency aggressively when power allows, albeit for short bursts.

The Verdict

The verdict depends entirely on the use case, and the data is unambiguous. For anyone building or buying a system where discrete graphics is possible, the RX 5700 is the superior performer. Its 67.3% OpenCL lead and 53.2% Vulkan lead are not marginal; they represent a fundamentally different performance class. The RX 5700’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 2304 shading units make it suitable for sustained, heavy workloads, including modern gaming at high settings and GPU-accelerated productivity tasks. Its end-of-life production status means it is no longer manufactured, but its recorded scores remain competitive even against newer mobile parts, as its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile at 22,435 average score, a 1.2% gap in the RX 5700’s favor.

The 860M is the right choice when the system cannot accommodate a discrete card. Its 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, and system-shared memory make it ideal for ultraportable laptops or mini PCs where the RX 5700’s 268 mm length, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and 450 W suggested PSU are physically and electrically impossible. The 860M’s 72nd percentile ranking versus the RX 5700’s 67th also indicates that, within its integrated class, the 860M is exceptionally strong, sitting near the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (average score 26,421, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553, a 0.6% difference). That proximity to a much older discrete card’s anniversary edition is notable for an IGP.

The RX 5700’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6700S (22,154 average, 0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB (21,856, 1.4% lower), showing it still holds its own against newer mobile and older desktop parts. The 860M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331, 0.3% lower), which suggests the integrated part is punching above its weight in synthetic averages. But when the two face each other directly, the RX 5700 wins every recorded test. The conclusion is simple: raw performance belongs to the RX 5700, efficiency and modernity belong to the 860M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 scores 69,603, which is 67.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 860M’s 22,759.

Q: How much power does each GPU consume?

A: The RX 5700 has a TDP of 180 W, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W, a twelve-fold difference.

Q: Does the 860M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 860M includes 8 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5700 has no RT cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 5700 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the 860M relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a better average benchmark percentile?

A: The 860M sits in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 26,401, while the RX 5700 is in the 67th percentile with 22,170.

Q: What is the release timing for each product?

A: The RX 5700 was released on 2019-07-06 and is marked end-of-life, while the 860M was released on 2025-02-28 and is still active in production.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations with distinct design priorities. The 860M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, part of the Krackan Point chip within the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its architecture is built for efficiency, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 dedicated RT cores. The FP16 throughput matches FP32 at 3.072 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio that prioritizes consistent compute across precisions. The boost clock reaches 3000 MHz, which is exceptionally high for a GPU and reflects the 4 nm node’s ability to scale frequency while keeping power at 15 W.

The RX 5700 uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process, with the Navi 10 chip from the RX 5000 series. It has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT cores. Its FP16 throughput is 15.90 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus FP32’s 7.949 TFLOPS, meaning half-precision is handled at half the rate per shader. The base clock is 1465 MHz, with a boost of 1725 MHz and a game clock of 1625 MHz, substantially lower than the 860M’s frequencies but with far more execution units. The RX 5700’s transistor count is known at 10,300 million on a 251 mm² die, with a density of 41.0M per mm², while the 860M’s transistor count and die size are unknown. The RX 5700 also lacks the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, topping out at DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 860M supports 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, matching the RX 5700’s Vulkan version.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts across nearly every category. The process node differs: 4 nm for the 860M versus 7 nm for the RX 5700. Clock speeds are inverted in magnitude: the 860M boosts to 3000 MHz, while the RX 5700 boosts to 1725 MHz with a game clock of 1625 MHz. Memory is a fundamental divergence: the 860M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width, while the RX 5700 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The core counts differ massively: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the 860M versus 2304, 144, and 64 for the RX 5700. The 860M includes 8 RT cores; the RX 5700 has none.

Pixel and texture rates favor the RX 5700: 110.4 GPixel/s and 248.4 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.949 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS. Power requirements are extreme: 15 W versus 180 W TDP, with the RX 5700 needing a 450 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the 860M uses none. Physical dimensions differ: the RX 5700 is a dual-slot card at 268 mm length, 111 mm height, and 36 mm width, while the 860M is an IGP with no listed dimensions. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 860M versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 5700. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the 860M, while the RX 5700 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 5700 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD, while the 860M has no listed MSRP. Production status differs: the 860M is active, the RX 5700 is end-of-life. Release dates are separated by over five years, with the RX 5700 launching on 2019-07-06 and the 860M on 2025-02-28.