AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

AMD Radeon 860M and AMD Radeon RX 7700S occupy different tiers in the mobile graphics space, and the benchmark data reflects a clear separation. The RX 7700S wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the 860M holds its own as a modern integrated solution. The recorded data shows the dedicated RX 7700S delivers substantially higher raw performance, while the 860M offers a far more power-efficient footprint for portable devices.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7700S wins decisively in every recorded benchmark comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 62,983 against the 860M's 22,759, a 63.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7700S scores 36,380 against 30,043, a 17.4% lead. These results position the RX 7700S as the clear choice for demanding graphics workloads, while the 860M trails significantly in compute-oriented tasks.

The 860M's strengths lie in its integration and power profile. With a 15 W TDP compared to the RX 7700S's 100 W, the 860M suits thin-and-light portables where battery life and thermals take priority over peak performance. Its system-shared memory architecture eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM, simplifying device design and reducing cost. The 860M also carries a newer architecture, RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0, which brings efficiency improvements despite the lower performance ceiling.

The RX 7700S wins in every scenario where dedicated graphics matter: gaming at higher resolutions, content creation, and compute-intensive applications. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a massive advantage over the 860M's system-dependent shared memory. The 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS, making the RX 7700S suitable for tasks that the integrated solution cannot handle adequately.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from AMD. The Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip built on RDNA 3.5, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, manufactured on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The 4 nm node gives the 860M a density advantage, though the transistor counts differ dramatically: the RX 7700S packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the 860M's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The RX 7700S carries the Navi Mobile generation designation (RX 7000M) with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, while the 860M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation under the Strix Point Mobile family. The 860M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the RX 7700S succeeds Polaris Mobile. Both use TSMC as the foundry.

Compute resources differ substantially. The RX 7700S has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. This 4:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs directly explains the performance gap in the benchmarks. The pixel rate tells the same story: 160.0 GPixel/s for the RX 7700S versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the 860M. Texture rate is 320.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s.

FP16 compute reveals another architectural difference. The RX 7700S delivers 40.96 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means the RX 7700S can double its throughput on half-precision workloads, a feature absent from the 860M's design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest margin. The RX 7700S scores 62,983 against the 860M's 22,759, a 63.9% deficit for the integrated part. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the RX 7700S has four times the shading units and over six times the FP32 throughput. OpenCL workloads that scale across compute units will heavily favor the dedicated GPU.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. The RX 7700S scores 36,380 against 30,043, a 17.4% lead. This smaller margin suggests the 860M's RDNA 3.5 architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently relative to its compute resources. The 860M achieves 59.2% of the RX 7700S's Vulkan score despite having only 25% of the shading units and 15% of the FP32 throughput. This indicates architectural efficiency gains in the newer RDNA 3.5 design.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall hierarchy. The RX 7700S averages 33,849 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs. The 860M averages 26,401, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The RX 7700S's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (0.3% lower), AMD Radeon RX 480 (0.4% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (0.5% higher), and NVIDIA RTX A5000 (0.7% higher). The 860M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (0.1% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (0.3% higher), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.6% lower), and NVIDIA RTX A4000 (1.1% lower).

These rival comparisons show both GPUs sit in competitive performance bands relative to their classes. The 860M trades blows with the MX550 and RTX 5060 in average scores, while the RX 7700S matches older desktop cards like the RX 480 and GTX 1060 5 GB.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The 860M uses a 4 nm process; the RX 7700S uses 6 nm. The 860M's base clock is 600 MHz with a 3000 MHz boost; the RX 7700S has a 1500 MHz base, 2200 MHz game clock, and 2500 MHz boost. The RX 7700S's higher base clock reflects its dedicated design, while the 860M's higher boost clock shows the newer architecture's headroom.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning performance varies with the host system's RAM. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. This dedicated memory eliminates contention with the CPU and provides predictable performance.

The RX 7700S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RX 7700S's 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.96 TFLOPS FP16 dwarf the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS in both precisions. Pixel rate is 160.0 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 320.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s.

Power draw differs by a factor of nearly seven: the RX 7700S has a 100 W TDP versus the 860M's 15 W. Both use PCIe 4.0, but the RX 7700S uses x16 lanes while the 860M uses x8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Release dates show the 860M arrived later, on 2025-02-28, while the RX 7700S launched on 2023-01-03. The RX 7700S's transistor density is recorded at 65.2M per mm², while the 860M's transistor count and die size remain unknown. Both are listed as active production status with IGP slot width and no power connectors, reflecting their mobile-focused designs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.96 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the AMD Radeon 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS in both precisions.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7700S in OpenCL?

A: The RX 7700S scores 62,983 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 22,759 for the 860M, a 63.9% advantage.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 7700S uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RX 7700S has a 100 W TDP, while the 860M has a 15 W TDP. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores, four times the 860M's 8 ray tracing cores.