AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and the AMD Radeon 860M represent two very different approaches to integrated graphics, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The recorded data shows the Vega M GH holds a clear performance lead in both compute and graphics workloads, but the 860M delivers that performance in a dramatically more efficient and modern package.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH wins outright on raw performance. It takes both benchmark tests in the head-to-head comparison, with an average benchmark score of 29197 compared to the 860M's 26401. Its OpenCL score of 27125 beats the 860M's 22759 by 19.2%, and its Vulkan score of 31268 beats the 860M's 30043 by 4.1%. This makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks and for applications that leverage Vulkan, where its lead is narrower but still decisive.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins on efficiency and modernity. Its TDP is 15 W against the Vega M GH's 100 W, a massive difference that makes it suitable for thin and light portables where the older chip would be impractical. The 860M also holds the advantage in API support, offering DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega M GH is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. It is built on a 4 nm process node from TSMC, whereas the Vega M GH uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries. The 860M is an active product, while the Vega M GH is end-of-life.

The performance gap is not uniform across workloads. The Vega M GH's 19.2% lead in OpenCL shows a substantial advantage in general compute, while its 4.1% lead in Vulkan suggests the 860M is much closer in graphics-oriented tasks. This indicates the 860M's RDNA 3.5 architecture is more efficient at translating its resources into graphics performance, even if it cannot match the older chip's brute-force compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, but the 4 nm node implies a much higher density.

The Vega M GH has a substantially larger execution resource pool. It features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having three times the shading units, the Vega M GH's FP32 throughput is only 3.656 TFLOPS versus the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 19%. This is because the 860M's boost clock reaches 3000 MHz, while the Vega M GH boosts to only 1190 MHz.

The Vega M GH uses dedicated HBM2 memory with 4 GB capacity, a 1024-bit bus, and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This gives the Vega M GH a massive memory bandwidth advantage that is critical for compute workloads, while the 860M's approach simplifies the system design and reduces power consumption.

The 860M has 8 ray tracing cores, while the Vega M GH has none. This means the 860M supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the older architecture. The 860M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the Vega M GH cannot access.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is the performance winner. Its average benchmark score of 29197 places it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, and it outperforms the 860M in both recorded tests. If raw compute and graphics throughput are the only criteria, the Vega M GH is the stronger part.

The AMD Radeon 860M is the efficiency and longevity winner. Its 15 W TDP makes it viable in far more portable devices than the 100 W Vega M GH. It is built on a advanced 4 nm process, supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and includes ray tracing hardware. It is an active product with a successor lineage, while the Vega M GH is end-of-life.

Who should pick which depends on the use case. For workloads that demand maximum compute throughput and can tolerate a 100 W power draw, the Vega M GH is the better option. For modern gaming features, ray tracing, and battery-conscious mobile devices, the 860M is the only sensible choice. The Vega M GH wins the benchmark battle, but the 860M wins the platform war.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has an average benchmark score of 29197, while the AMD Radeon 860M scores 26401. The Vega M GH sits in the 74th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 860M's 72nd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The Vega M GH scores 27125 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.2% higher than the 860M's 22759. This is the largest single-test difference between the two.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 860M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The 860M has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Vega M GH has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of dedicated HBM2 memory with a 1024-bit bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Vega M GH has a TDP of 100 W, while the 860M has a TDP of 15 W. This makes the 860M far more suitable for thin, battery-powered devices.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M was released on 2025-02-28 and is an active product. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH was released on 2018-01-31 and is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH's greatest advantage. Its score of 27125 versus the 860M's 22759 represents a 19.2% lead. This result aligns with the Vega M GH's hardware configuration: 1536 shading units, a 1024-bit memory bus, and 204.8 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. Compute workloads that can saturate these resources will see a significant benefit from the older chip.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is much closer. The Vega M GH scores 31268, while the 860M scores 30043, a margin of only 4.1%. This narrower gap suggests the 860M's RDNA 3.5 architecture is highly efficient in graphics workloads. Despite having only 512 shading units and relying on system shared memory, it nearly matches the Vega M GH's dedicated HBM2 solution in Vulkan. The 860M's 3000 MHz boost clock, nearly three times the Vega M GH's 1190 MHz, helps compensate for its smaller execution resource pool.

The Vega M GH wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the comparison. However, the trend line favors the 860M. The newer chip loses by 19.2% in OpenCL but only 4.1% in Vulkan, and its ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it features the Vega M GH cannot offer at all. The 860M also sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 in average score, while the Vega M GH is 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M. Both GPUs are competitive within their respective eras, but the 860M achieves its results at a fraction of the power draw.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The Vega M GH uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while the 860M uses a 4 nm node from TSMC. The Vega M GH has 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, while the 860M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds show a striking contrast. The Vega M GH has a base clock of 1063 MHz and a boost clock of 1190 MHz. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz but boosts to 3000 MHz, giving it a far higher peak frequency.

Execution resources favor the Vega M GH in raw counts: 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus the 860M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 860M counters with 8 ray tracing cores, which the Vega M GH lacks entirely. Pixel rate and texture rate both favor the Vega M GH, with 76.16 GPixel/s and 114.2 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.656 TFLOPS for the Vega M GH and 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M, a 19% difference that mirrors the OpenCL benchmark gap.

Memory is a fundamental difference. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. Power consumption is equally divided: the Vega M GH draws 100 W, while the 860M draws only 15 W. The 860M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Vega M GH is listed as IGP. API support gives the 860M the edge with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, against the Vega M GH's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.