AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 Comparison
AMD Radeon 860M
Radeon RX 6800
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 6800
The Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6800 and AMD Radeon 860M serve fundamentally different purposes, and the benchmark data reflects that split clearly. The RX 6800 is a discrete graphics card from the Radeon RX 6000 series, built on the Navi 21 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The 860M is an integrated graphics processor within the Krackan Point chip, using RDNA 3.5 architecture and belonging to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile platforms.
For users seeking maximum graphics performance in a desktop system, the RX 6800 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 30,095 places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the 860M sits at 26,401 average score and the 72nd percentile. The gap is meaningful but not overwhelming in compute workloads. However, in Vulkan rendering, the RX 6800 delivers a score of 115,107 compared to 30,043 for the 860M, a difference of 283.1 percent. That is a decisive margin for gaming and graphics-heavy applications.
The 860M, with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, belongs in thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal constraints dominate. Its 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for light gaming and everyday graphics tasks, but the data shows it trails the RX 6800 in every recorded benchmark. Users who need portability and low power consumption should choose the 860M. Users who need raw graphics throughput should choose the RX 6800.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The RX 6800 uses RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process, with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The 860M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, though its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.
The RX 6800 features 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 60 ray tracing cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, along with 8 ray tracing cores. These are dramatically different configurations, with the RX 6800 providing roughly 7.5 times the shading units and 7.5 times the TMUs.
Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The RX 6800 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. This explains much of the performance gap in memory-intensive workloads.
Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 6800 operates at a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 1815 MHz, and a boost clock of 2105 MHz. Its memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, but with no dedicated memory clock since it shares system memory.
The FP32 compute figures differ by a factor of more than five: 16.17 TFLOPS for the RX 6800 versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M. Interestingly, the 860M's FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 6800 doubles to 32.33 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.
Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6800 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 6800 has display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C, whereas the 860M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 records an average benchmark score of 30,095, compared to 26,401 for the AMD Radeon 860M. This places the RX 6800 in the 75th percentile of all GPUs and the 860M in the 72nd percentile.
Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?
A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 6800 scores 115,107 while the 860M scores 30,043. The RX 6800 leads by 283.1 percent, making this the largest recorded difference between the two.
Q: Does the 860M have any advantages in the recorded benchmarks?
A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the RX 6800 winning both recorded tests. The RX 6800 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 24,508 versus 22,759, a 7.7 percent margin, and the Geekbench Vulkan test with the 283.1 percent margin mentioned above.
Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?
A: The RX 6800 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth that varies based on the host platform.
Q: How do the power requirements differ?
A: The RX 6800 has a TDP of 250 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and recommends a 600 W power supply. It is a dual-slot card. The 860M has a 15 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and is an integrated GPU with no slot width.
Q: Which GPUs are the nearest rivals for each product?
A: For the RX 6800, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti with an average score of 29,945 (0.5 percent difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile at 29,928 (0.6 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti at 29,783 (1 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30,433 (negative 1.1 percent). For the 860M, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (negative 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26,331 (0.3 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26,553 (negative 0.6 percent), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 at 26,683 (negative 1.1 percent).
Specification Differences
The two products differ across nearly every specification category recorded in the database.
Process and die: The RX 6800 uses a 7 nm process with a 520 mm² die and 26,800 million transistors. The 860M uses a 4 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.
Architecture and generation: The RX 6800 uses RDNA 2.0 from the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. The 860M uses RDNA 3.5 from the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.
Clocks: The RX 6800 has a 1700 MHz base clock, 1815 MHz game clock, 2105 MHz boost clock, and 2000 MHz memory clock. The 860M has a 600 MHz base clock, 3000 MHz boost clock, no game clock, and system shared memory clock.
Compute units: The RX 6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores.
Memory: The RX 6800 has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M has system shared memory with no fixed size, type, or bus width.
Rates and throughput: The RX 6800 achieves 202.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, 505.2 GTexel/s texture rate, 16.17 TFLOPS FP32, and 32.33 TFLOPS FP16. The 860M achieves 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16.
Power and form factor: The RX 6800 has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, two 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The 860M has a 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.
Bus and outputs: The RX 6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 with specific display outputs. The 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with portable device dependent outputs.
Production status: The RX 6800 is end-of-life, released on 2020-10-27. The 860M is active, released on 2025-02-28.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the RX 6800 wins both.
In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6800 scores 24,508 while the 860M scores 22,759. The margin is 7.7 percent in favor of the RX 6800. This is a relatively modest gap, suggesting that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the 860M performs respectably despite its much lower hardware specifications. The 860M's 4 nm process and high boost clock of 3000 MHz likely help narrow the gap in this particular workload.
In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the difference is far more pronounced. The RX 6800 scores 115,107 against 30,043 for the 860M, a 283.1 percent advantage. This is a massive margin that reflects the RX 6800's dedicated memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s and its far larger compute configuration. The 860M's system shared memory and lower shading unit count become severe bottlenecks in Vulkan rendering workloads.
Across both recorded benchmarks, the RX 6800 wins 2 tests and the 860M wins 0. The average benchmark score difference is 3,694 points, or roughly 14 percent. However, the Vulkan result dominates this average, so the real-world split depends heavily on which API a given application uses.
It is importantly the two GPUs have very different nearest rival sets, which contextualizes their overall performance tiers. The RX 6800 competes with desktop GPUs like the RTX 3070 Ti and RTX 2080 Ti, with all rivals within 1.1 percent of its average score. The 860M competes with mobile and lower-tier GPUs like the MX550 and RTX 5060, with all rivals within 1.1 percent as well. This indicates that both products sit in competitive positions within their respective segments.
Where Each One Wins
The RX 6800 wins decisively in Vulkan-based workloads. Its 283.1 percent advantage in the Geekbench Vulkan test demonstrates that applications using this API will see dramatically higher performance on the discrete card. The dedicated 16 GB of GDDR6 memory at 512.0 GB/s bandwidth provides the memory throughput that Vulkan rendering demands. Users running modern games, 3D applications, or any Vulkan-accelerated software should expect the RX 6800 to deliver substantially better frame rates and rendering performance.
The RX 6800 also wins in OpenCL compute, though by a smaller margin of 7.7 percent. The 24,508 score versus 22,759 indicates that compute tasks using OpenCL will run roughly 8 percent faster on the RX 6800. This advantage stems from the RX 6800's 3,840 shading units and 505.2 GTexel/s texture rate, which provide more parallel processing capacity than the 860M's 512 shading units and 96.00 GTexel/s.
The 860M wins in no recorded benchmark, but its characteristics point to specific advantages that the data supports indirectly. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RX 6800's 250 W, making it suitable for systems without discrete graphics. Its 4 nm process node represents a newer manufacturing generation. Its 3000 MHz boost clock is higher than the RX 6800's 2105 MHz, though this does not translate into compute advantages given the far smaller execution resources.
The 860M's nearest rival comparison shows it performs in the same range as the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (0.1 percent difference) and the GeForce RTX 5060 (0.3 percent difference). This places it in the entry-level to mid-range mobile graphics tier. The RX 6800's nearest rivals, including the RTX 3070 Ti and RTX 2080 Ti, place it in the upper-mid-range desktop tier.
For system builders, the choice depends on the platform. Desktop users with space for a dual-slot card and a 600 W power supply should choose the RX 6800. Mobile users or compact systems requiring an integrated solution should choose the 860M. The production status fields support this: the RX 6800 is end-of-life, while the 860M is active and recently released. The RX 6800 had a launch MSRP of 579 USD, while the 860M has no recorded launch price.
The data presents a clear hierarchy. The RX 6800 outperforms the 860M in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 7.7 percent to 283.1 percent. The 860M's strengths lie in power efficiency and integration, not in raw graphics throughput. For any workload where GPU performance matters, the RX 6800 is the superior choice. For workloads where power consumption and system size matter more than performance, the 860M serves its purpose.