AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and the AMD Radeon 860M. Across the two shared benchmark workloads, the RX 6700 wins outright in both, with the largest margin appearing in Geekbench OpenCL.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6700 scores 97,841 points against the 860M’s 22,759 points. That is a 329.9% delta, meaning the RX 6700 delivers more than four times the compute throughput in this workload. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational and architectural chasm in raw parallel compute. The 860M’s score of 22,759 places it closer to entry-level discrete GPUs from several years ago, while the RX 6700’s 97,841 sits firmly in mid-range desktop territory.

The Geekbench Vulkan result narrows the gap somewhat, but the RX 6700 still dominates. Its score of 83,974 beats the 860M’s 30,043 by 179.5%. Vulkan is often more efficient on newer architectures due to lower overhead and better driver scheduling, and the 860M’s RDNA 3.5 design does close some of the relative distance. Still, a 179.5% lead means the RX 6700 is nearly three times faster in this API. For gaming workloads that rely on Vulkan, the RX 6700 will deliver significantly higher frame rates at the same settings.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RX 6700 posts an average benchmark score of 30,433 across all recorded tests, while the 860M averages 26,401. That is only a 15.3% gap in aggregate, which may seem modest compared to the head-to-head deltas. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The RX 6700 has a much larger set of recorded tests, including older DirectX and Passmark workloads where it performs well. The 860M only has two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests, so its average is pulled up by Vulkan’s relatively strong showing.

The RX 6700’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (average score 30,476, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (30,490, delta -0.2%). It also sits slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095, delta 1.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945, delta 1.6%). These deltas are small, all within 1.6%, which suggests the RX 6700 is a well-balanced performer that trades blows with those cards depending on the workload.

The 860M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. It sits near the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331, delta 0.3%), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553, delta -0.6%), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26,683, delta -1.1%). The 860M’s average places it right in the middle of that group, but those rivals span very different market segments. The MX550 is a low-power laptop GPU, the RTX 5060 is a modern desktop card, and the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary is a high-end card from a previous generation. The fact that the 860M lands between them highlights how much performance varies across its recorded workloads.

The RX 6700’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is 75, meaning it outperforms three quarters of all recorded graphics cards. The 860M sits at the 72nd percentile, which is surprisingly close given the raw score gap. This is because percentiles account for the full distribution of GPUs, including many low-end and integrated parts, so both cards end up in the upper quartile. For practical purposes, however, the RX 6700 is in a different performance class.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the faster GPU by a wide margin in every shared benchmark. If you need maximum compute and gaming performance, the RX 6700 is the obvious choice. Its 329.9% OpenCL lead and 179.5% Vulkan lead over the 860M are not subtle differences. The RX 6700 also has a higher average benchmark score (30,433 vs 26,401) and a higher percentile ranking (75 vs 72).

The AMD Radeon 860M, however, should not be dismissed outright. It is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, while the RX 6700 is a 175 W discrete card with a dual-slot cooler and an 8-pin power connector. The 860M draws a fraction of the power and requires no additional power connectors. If you are building a thin-and-light laptop or a low-power compact system, the 860M is the only viable option between the two. The RX 6700 physically cannot fit into that use case.

For desktop builders with a dedicated power supply and case space, the RX 6700 is the clear winner. It wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, and its performance relative to rivals like the RTX 3070 Ti (1.6% ahead) and RX 6800 (1.1% ahead) shows it can hang with much more expensive cards. The 860M’s closest rivals include the MX550 and RTX 5060, but its performance relative to those is much closer, which means it does not offer the same kind of headroom.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins in every measured compute and graphics workload. Its OpenCL score of 97,841 is ideal for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, video encoding, physics simulation, and machine learning inference. Its Vulkan score of 83,974 makes it strong for modern games, particularly those built on Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate (both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6700 has far more execution resources to leverage those APIs). The RX 6700 also has 10 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP versus the RX 6700’s 175 W means it consumes less than one tenth the power. It uses system shared memory, so there is no dedicated VRAM allocation needed. It is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU requirement. For portable devices where battery life and thermal limits are the primary constraints, the 860M is the practical pick despite its lower scores.

The 860M’s Vulkan result of 30,043 is actually respectable for an integrated part. It outperforms many older discrete laptop GPUs in that test, and its RDNA 3.5 architecture brings modern features like ray tracing (8 RT cores) and a 4 nm process node. The RX 6700 has 36 RT cores, so it still wins in ray-traced workloads, but the 860M’s implementation is far more power-efficient.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 97,841 versus the 860M’s 22,759, a 329.9% lead.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 6700 scores 83,974 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the 860M scores 30,043. The RX 6700 is 179.5% faster.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 860M suitable for gaming?

A: Yes, but at lower settings and resolutions. Its Vulkan score of 30,043 is roughly comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (average score 26,421), which is an entry-level laptop GPU. It can handle esports and older titles, but it lacks the headroom of the RX 6700.

Q: What is the power requirement for each card?

A: The RX 6700 has a 175 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU plus one 8-pin power connector. The 860M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6700 averages 30,433 across all recorded tests, while the 860M averages 26,401. The RX 6700 also ranks at the 75th percentile versus the 860M’s 72nd.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 22 chip, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The AMD Radeon 860M uses RDNA 3.5 with the Krackan Point chip, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process. The 4 nm node is significantly more advanced, which explains how the 860M achieves a 3000 MHz boost clock despite a 15 W power envelope, versus the RX 6700’s 2450 MHz boost at 175 W.

The RX 6700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 36 ray tracing cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. That is a 4.5x difference in shader count, 4.5x in TMUs, and 4x in ROPs. The RX 6700’s pixel rate is 156.8 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 352.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 11.29 TFLOPS for the RX 6700 versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, so capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The RX 6700’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the 860M has no dedicated memory clock.

The RX 6700 is a discrete dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The 860M is an integrated GPU with no dimensions recorded and no slot width. The RX 6700 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs on the RX 6700 are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the 860M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

The RX 6700 is end-of-life, released in June 2021, with its predecessor being Navi and its successor being Navi III. The 860M is active, released in late February 2025, with its predecessor being Navi II IGP and no successor recorded. Both are manufactured by AMD.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are as follows:

• Process Node: The RX 6700 uses 7 nm; the 860M uses 4 nm.
• Transistors: The RX 6700 has 17,200 million; the 860M’s count is unknown.
• Die Size: The RX 6700 is 335 mm²; the 860M’s is unknown.
• Base Clock: The RX 6700 runs at 1941 MHz; the 860M at 600 MHz.
• Boost Clock: The RX 6700 boosts to 2450 MHz; the 860M to 3000 MHz.
• Memory: The RX 6700 has 10 GB GDDR6 with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth; the 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.
• Shading Units: 2304 on the RX 6700 versus 512 on the 860M.
• TMUs: 144 versus 32.
• ROPs: 64 versus 16.
• RT Cores: 36 versus 8.
• FP32: 11.29 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 175 W versus 15 W.
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus IGP.
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none.
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus none listed.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width versus none recorded.
• Production Status: End-of-life versus active.
• Release Date: June 2021 versus February 2025.
• Generation: Navi II (RX 6000) versus Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile).