AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture when comparing these two mobile graphics solutions. Across the two shared test workloads, the AMD Radeon RX 6600M wins both, leaving the AMD Radeon 860M without a single victory in the head-to-head comparison.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600M posts a score of 67765 against the 860M's 22759. That translates to a 66.4% deficit for the integrated part. The gap is substantial enough that the RX 6600M operates in a different performance tier entirely, not merely a modest step ahead.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The RX 6600M reaches 73740 while the 860M manages 30043, a 59.3% difference. Vulkan tends to favor architectures with higher raw throughput, and the discrete card's advantage in shading resources becomes evident in this API.

Looking at the aggregate statistics, the RX 6600M holds an average benchmark score of 23273 across all recorded tests, while the 860M averages 26401. This is an interesting inversion: the 860M's average is higher despite losing both head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in the test sets. The RX 6600M has eleven recorded benchmarks, including multiple Passmark legacy tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute) where scores range from 52 to 13929. The 860M has only two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests where it scores relatively well. The 860M's average is buoyed by having fewer low-end legacy results in its profile.

The percentile rankings confirm the overall positioning. The 860M sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6600M ranks at the 68th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head, the 860M's percentile is actually higher. This reflects the fact that many older discrete GPUs and weaker integrated solutions drag the distribution downward, and the 860M's two strong Geekbench results place it above a larger share of the field.

The nearest rivals for each card provide context. The 860M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, with an average score of 26421 and a delta of -0.1%. The RTX 5060 sits at 26331 (0.3% behind), the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26553 (-0.6%), and the RTX A4000 at 26683 (-1.1%). These deltas are all within 1.1%, meaning the 860M's average performance is tightly clustered with these four products despite their vastly different architectures and market positions.

The RX 6600M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (0.1%), the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (0.1%), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 at 23315 (-0.2%). All deltas are within 0.2%, showing that the RX 6600M's average score is remarkably consistent with these four GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M wins decisively with a score of 67765 versus the AMD Radeon 860M's 22759, a 66.4% advantage.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare?

A: The RX 6600M scores 73740 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the 860M scores 30043. The RX 6600M leads by 59.3% in this workload.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401 across its two recorded tests. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M averages 23273 across eleven recorded tests.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M ranks at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600M ranks at the 68th percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival to the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 is the nearest rival, with an average score of 26421 and a delta of -0.1% compared to the 860M's 26401.

Q: What is the closest rival to the AMD Radeon RX 6600M?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X is the nearest rival, with an average score of 23276 and a delta of 0% compared to the RX 6600M's 23273.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6600M is the superior performer in direct comparisons. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with margins exceeding 59%. The raw compute advantage is substantial, and the RX 6600M's larger shading unit count, higher texture and pixel rates, and dedicated memory subsystem all contribute to this outcome.

The AMD Radeon 860M, however, should not be dismissed outright. Its 72nd percentile ranking exceeds the RX 6600M's 68th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 26401 is higher than the RX 6600M's 23273. The 860M also operates at a 15 W TDP compared to the RX 6600M's 100 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where power draw is a primary constraint.

For users who prioritize maximum frame rates and compute throughput in a laptop, the RX 6600M is the clear choice. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, combined with 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs, provides the resources necessary for demanding workloads. The 860M's system-shared memory and 512 shading units place it in a different class of performance.

For users who value efficiency and portability, the 860M offers a capable integrated solution. Its 4 nm process node and 15 W power envelope allow it to fit into compact devices without dedicated cooling. The 860M's performance in Geekbench Vulkan (30043) and OpenCL (22759) is respectable for an integrated part, and its 72nd percentile ranking shows it outperforms many older discrete GPUs.

The production status also matters. The RX 6600M is marked as end-of-life, while the 860M is active. For new system designs, the 860M represents a current product with ongoing availability. The RX 6600M, released in May 2021, is older and may be harder to source in new devices.

The verdict depends on the use case. Gamers and content creators should choose the RX 6600M for its superior compute performance. Users who need a balanced, efficient integrated GPU for light gaming and productivity should consider the 860M. The data shows the RX 6600M wins on raw performance, while the 860M wins on efficiency and currency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

The RX 6600M uses a discrete memory configuration with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

The shading unit counts diverge sharply. The RX 6600M has 1792 shading units, while the 860M has 512. Texture mapping units number 112 on the RX 6600M versus 32 on the 860M. Render output units are 64 versus 16. Ray tracing cores are 28 on the RX 6600M and 8 on the 860M.

Clock speeds also differ. The RX 6600M has a base clock of 2068 MHz, a game clock of 2177 MHz, and a boost clock of 2416 MHz. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The 860M's higher boost clock does not compensate for its much lower base clock and reduced execution resources.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource disparity. The RX 6600M achieves 154.6 GPixel/s and 270.6 GTexel/s. The 860M reaches 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The RX 6600M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS in FP32 and 17.32 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1 ratio). The 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, at a 1:1 ratio.

Power consumption differs by a factor of nearly seven. The RX 6600M has a TDP of 100 W. The 860M has a TDP of 15 W.

The process nodes differ. The RX 6600M uses a 7 nm process, while the 860M uses a 4 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the RX 6600M: 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The 860M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Release dates differ by nearly four years. The RX 6600M was released on May 30, 2021. The 860M was released on February 28, 2025.

Both GPUs use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and have no power connectors. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

The RX 6600M belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The 860M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs spans two generations of AMD graphics technology.

The RX 6600M is built on RDNA 2.0, which was the foundation of AMD's RX 6000 series. This architecture introduced ray tracing support and improved power efficiency over the previous RDNA generation. The Navi 23 chip implements this architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. The transistor density of 46.7M per mm² reflects the mature 7 nm process.

The 860M uses RDNA 3.5, a more recent iteration of AMD's graphics architecture. The 4 nm process node represents a significant manufacturing advancement, allowing higher clock speeds and better efficiency per watt. The Krackan Point chip integrates the GPU into a system-on-chip design, sharing memory with the CPU rather than using dedicated VRAM.

The execution resource counts reveal the fundamental difference. The RX 6600M's 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs provide roughly 3.5 times the shading units, 3.5 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs of the 860M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Ray tracing cores follow a similar ratio at 28 versus 8.

The FP16 compute ratio differs between the architectures. The RX 6600M executes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, yielding 17.32 TFLOPS in FP16 versus 8.659 TFLOPS in FP32. The 860M executes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning both FP16 and FP32 peak at 3.072 TFLOPS. This indicates the RX 6600M has dedicated FP16 throughput, while the 860M treats both precisions equally.

The memory architecture is a defining difference. The RX 6600M's dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth eliminates contention with the CPU for memory access. The 860M's system-shared memory has bandwidth that is system dependent, meaning actual performance varies based on the laptop's memory configuration.

Clock behavior also differs by architecture generation. The RX 6600M's boost clock of 2416 MHz is modest relative to its base of 2068 MHz, a 16.8% uplift. The 860M's boost clock of 3000 MHz represents a 400% increase over its 600 MHz base clock. This suggests the 860M is designed to run at very low clocks during idle or light loads, then ramp aggressively under demand, consistent with integrated graphics power management.

Power efficiency is the clearest architectural differentiator. The 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS within a 15 W envelope, while the RX 6600M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS within a 100 W envelope. The 860M achieves 0.2048 TFLOPS per watt, while the RX 6600M achieves 0.0866 TFLOPS per watt. The newer architecture is 2.4 times more efficient on this metric.

The production status reflects the architectural lifecycle. The RX 6600M is end-of-life, having been succeeded by newer mobile parts. The 860M is active, indicating ongoing availability in current products. The predecessor names also differ: the RX 6600M succeeded Polaris Mobile, while the 860M succeeded Navi II IGP.