AMD Radeon 860M vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Radeon 860M and the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU occupy different tiers within the mobile graphics landscape, and the recorded data reflects a clear separation in raw computational output. The Radeon 860M, built on the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, using the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning its average benchmark score sits at zero. This absence of recorded measurements for the Z2 Go GPU means direct numerical comparison is impossible from the database alone; however, the architectural specifications provide a basis for projecting relative performance.

The Radeon 860M stands at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26401. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, which scores 26421 and sits 0.1 percent ahead of the 860M, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, which scores 26331 and trails the 860M by 0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, placing it 0.6 percent ahead, while the NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683, 1.1 percent ahead. These margins are remarkably tight, indicating the Radeon 860M delivers performance that aligns with established discrete mobile GPUs despite its integrated nature.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, by contrast, holds only the 50th percentile among all GPUs, and with no average benchmark score recorded, it cannot be placed within the same comparative framework. The absence of nearest rival data for the Z2 Go further isolates it from direct performance analysis. What the database does show is a substantial gap in theoretical throughput: the Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS. This 35 percent advantage in raw FP32 for the Z2 Go GPU suggests it should outperform the 860M in compute-heavy workloads, yet the lack of measured scores prevents confirmation.

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves a texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, compared to the Radeon 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s. The Z2 Go leads in both metrics, with a 35 percent advantage in texture rate and an 80 percent advantage in pixel rate. These figures point toward stronger fill-rate performance for the Z2 Go, which would typically translate to better results in resolution-bound rendering scenarios.

Clock speeds present a counter-narrative. The Radeon 860M boosts to 3000 MHz, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU boosts to 2700 MHz. The 860M's 300 MHz higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower shading unit count, though not enough to close the gap in peak FP32 output. The Radeon 860M also operates at a substantially lower TDP of 15 W compared to the Z2 Go's 28 W, meaning the 860M achieves its results within a much tighter power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 860M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP positions it for ultra-portable devices where power draw directly impacts battery life and thermal management. The 860M uses system-shared memory, which simplifies device design and reduces cost through fewer discrete components. It connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, providing a dedicated interface for data transfer, and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning it adapts to the host system's configuration. The 860M's RDNA 3.5 architecture also supports a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, delivering 3.072 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which suits workloads that benefit from equal half-precision throughput.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins on raw specifications. Its 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs all exceed the Radeon 860M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Z2 Go packs 12 ray tracing cores versus the 860M's 8, suggesting stronger ray tracing capability. It comes with 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, a fixed allocation that does not compete with system memory. The Z2 Go's 2:1 FP16 ratio yields 8.294 TFLOPS of half-precision performance, more than double its FP32 output and far above the 860M's FP16 capability.

The Z2 Go also benefits from a larger memory pool. With 16 GB dedicated to the GPU, it avoids the variability of system-shared memory, where available capacity and bandwidth depend on the host system's configuration. The database lists the 860M's memory bandwidth as system dependent, while the Z2 Go's is fixed at 102.4 GB/s. For workloads that demand consistent memory performance, the Z2 Go offers predictability that the 860M cannot guarantee.

The 860M counters with architectural recency. RDNA 3.5 represents a newer design generation than RDNA 2.0, and the 860M's 4 nm process node from TSMC contrasts with the Z2 Go's 6 nm node. The 860M also lacks a stated transistor count or die size in the database, while the Z2 Go lists 13,100 million transistors across a 208 mm² die, yielding a density of 63.0M per mm². The 860M's smaller process node suggests higher transistor density per area, though the database does not confirm this directly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores, resulting in an average benchmark score of zero and a 50th percentile ranking.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon 860M sits within 1.1 percent of four nearby GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 leads it by 0.1 percent, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary leads by 0.6 percent, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 leads by 1.1 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 trails by 0.3 percent.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS, a 35 percent higher value.

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings differ?

A: The Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The 860M operates at nearly half the power draw of the Z2 Go.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units and 8 ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The 860M is fabricated on a 4 nm process from TSMC, whereas the Z2 Go uses a 6 nm process from the same foundry. The database lists the 860M's transistor count and die size as unknown, while the Z2 Go lists 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die with a density of 63.0M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge: the 860M runs a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the Z2 Go runs a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. Memory configurations differ fundamentally, with the 860M using system-shared memory and the Z2 Go using 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128 bit bus. The 860M's memory bandwidth is system dependent, while the Z2 Go provides a fixed 102.4 GB/s.

Compute resources favor the Z2 Go: 768 shading units versus 512, 48 TMUs versus 32, 32 ROPs versus 16, and 12 ray tracing cores versus 8. Pixel rate reaches 86.40 GPixel/s on the Z2 Go versus 48.00 GPixel/s on the 860M, and texture rate reaches 129.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 output measures 4.147 TFLOPS on the Z2 Go versus 3.072 TFLOPS on the 860M, while FP16 output measures 8.294 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio on the Z2 Go versus 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio on the 860M.

Power consumption differs substantially: 15 W for the 860M versus 28 W for the Z2 Go. The 860M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8 and is an IGP with no slot width, while the Z2 Go lists no bus interface and no slot width. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 860M, while the Z2 Go lists a single USB Type-C output. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ, with the Z2 Go dated 2024-12-31 and the 860M dated 2025-02-28.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 860M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, built on the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU belongs to the Console GPU generation for AMD, built on the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. These represent two distinct design eras within AMD's GPU lineup, with RDNA 3.5 being the newer iteration.

The manufacturing process separates them further: the 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC node, while the Z2 Go uses a 6 nm TSMC node. The smaller process node typically enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which the data supports through the 860M's 3000 MHz boost clock and 15 W TDP. The Z2 Go's larger 208 mm² die and 13,100 million transistors reflect an older process that requires more area and power to house its compute resources.

Cache and memory hierarchy differ in structure. The 860M relies entirely on system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM allocation. The Z2 Go integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory directly, paired with a 128 bit bus. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the Z2 Go a fixed bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, whereas the 860M's bandwidth fluctuates based on the host system's memory configuration.

The ray tracing implementations differ in scale. The Z2 Go packs 12 ray tracing cores, 50 percent more than the 860M's 8. This suggests the Z2 Go can handle more concurrent ray tracing operations, though architectural efficiency differences between RDNA 2.0 and RDNA 3.5 could narrow the practical gap. FP16 throughput also diverges: the Z2 Go's 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio doubles its half-precision output to 8.294 TFLOPS, while the 860M's 1:1 ratio keeps FP16 equal to FP32 at 3.072 TFLOPS. This makes the Z2 Go more suited to workloads that exploit half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks.

The Verdict

The database presents a clear trade-off between the two GPUs. The AMD Radeon 860M delivers verified benchmark performance at 26401 average score, ranking in the 72nd percentile and matching discrete mobile GPUs within a 1.1 percent margin. It accomplishes this at 15 W, making it the choice for systems where power efficiency is paramount. Its RDNA 3.5 architecture and 4 nm process represent the newer design, and its 3000 MHz boost clock leads the Z2 Go by 300 MHz.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU offers superior raw specifications across nearly every compute metric. Its 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores exceed the 860M's counts, and its 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 output stands 35 percent higher. The dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 memory pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent performance that system-shared memory cannot match. However, this capability comes at 28 W, nearly double the 860M's power draw, and the Z2 Go has no recorded benchmark scores to validate its theoretical advantages.

The absence of benchmark data for the Z2 Go is the deciding factor. The 860M's measured performance places it among capable discrete GPUs, while the Z2 Go's actual performance remains unquantified in the database. Users prioritizing verified results and efficiency should select the Radeon 860M. Users prioritizing peak specification and dedicated memory, and who can accommodate the higher power draw, should consider the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU based on its architectural advantages. The data supports both choices, depending on whether measured outcomes or theoretical capacity carry more weight.