AMD Radeon 860M vs Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one fully populated benchmark profile in this comparison. The AMD Radeon 860M has two benchmark entries: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26401. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. Direct head-to-head test results between these two parts are not recorded, so the comparison must rely on the AMD side’s absolute scores and its relative standing against other GPUs.

The AMD Radeon 860M’s average score of 26401 places it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26421, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the 860M trails that discrete laptop GPU by a negligible margin. The next closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26331, where the 860M leads by 0.3%. Against the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26553), the 860M is behind by 0.6%. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26683) sits 1.1% ahead. These small deltas indicate the 860M’s integrated graphics performance is statistically near several mid-range discrete GPUs from previous generations, a notable result for an IGP.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has no recorded scores in the database, so no percentile or rival comparisons exist. The absence of benchmark data means the database cannot quantify its performance relative to the Radeon 860M. The only measurable comparison comes from the AMD side’s scores and the rival deltas provided. The 860M’s Vulkan score of 30043 is roughly 32% higher than its own OpenCL score of 22759, suggesting the RDNA 3.5 architecture handles Vulkan workloads particularly well. This gap between API scores is a useful signal for application-specific expectations.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear asymmetry: the AMD Radeon 860M has extensive recorded benchmark data, while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has none. For any user relying on the database for quantified performance, the Radeon 860M is the only option with measurable results. Its average score of 26401 and 72nd percentile ranking place it firmly in the mid-range of all GPUs, competitive with discrete mobile parts like the GeForce MX550 (delta -0.1%) and even the RTX 5060 (delta +0.3%).

The Intel part’s zero average score does not necessarily mean it is slower, but the database holds no evidence of its performance. Given the 860M’s 4 nm process node versus Intel’s 10 nm node, and the AMD part’s higher boost clock of 3000 MHz versus 1450 MHz, the data implies the Radeon 860M should have a significant clock-for-clock advantage. However, the Iris Xe has more shading units (640 vs 512), more TMUs (40 vs 32), and more ROPs (20 vs 16), so raw throughput per clock favors Intel. The recorded FP32 figures confirm this: the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS while the Iris Xe delivers 1.856 TFLOPS, meaning AMD’s higher clocks overcome Intel’s wider pipeline.

From the data alone, the Radeon 860M is the choice for anyone who wants verified performance numbers, a higher percentile ranking, and a more recent release date (2025-02-28 versus 2023-01-03). The Iris Xe’s only recorded advantages are its larger shading unit count, higher pixel rate per clock, and a 2:1 FP16 ratio, none of which translate into a measured score in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and is part of the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile). Its chip is named Krackan Point. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses Generation 12.2 architecture (commonly associated with Intel’s Xe-LP), built on a 10 nm process at Intel, and is part of the HD Graphics-M generation for Raptor Lake. The process node gap is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which typically allows the AMD part to operate at far higher clock speeds while staying within the same 15 W TDP.

The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Iris Xe has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, but the database lists no ray tracing cores for Intel. This is a major architectural divergence: the AMD part includes hardware ray tracing acceleration, while the Intel part does not record any such capability. The 860M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Iris Xe supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The FP16 throughput differs in ratio. The Radeon 860M records 3.072 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain extra throughput from reduced precision. The Iris Xe records 3.712 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its FP32 rate (1.856 TFLOPS) when using half precision. This suggests Intel’s architecture is more optimized for FP16 workloads, though the database provides no benchmark to show whether that advantage translates into real performance.

The bus interface also differs. The Radeon 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Iris Xe uses a Ring Bus. Both have system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so no memory bandwidth figures are recorded for either part.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Process Node: AMD 4 nm (TSMC) vs Intel 10 nm (Intel)
• Base Clock: AMD 600 MHz vs Intel 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: AMD 3000 MHz vs Intel 1450 MHz
• Shading Units: AMD 512 vs Intel 640
• TMUs: AMD 32 vs Intel 40
• ROPs: AMD 16 vs Intel 20
• Ray Tracing Cores: AMD 8 vs Intel none
• Pixel Rate: AMD 48.00 GPixel/s vs Intel 29.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: AMD 96.00 GTexel/s vs Intel 58.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: AMD 3.072 TFLOPS vs Intel 1.856 TFLOPS
• FP16: AMD 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) vs Intel 3.712 TFLOPS (2:1)
• DirectX Support: AMD 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs Intel 12 (12_1)
• Bus Interface: AMD PCIe 4.0 x8 vs Intel Ring Bus
• Release Date: AMD 2025-02-28 vs Intel 2023-01-03
• Successor: AMD none vs Intel Arc Graphics-M
• Predecessor: AMD Navi II IGP vs Intel none

Fields that are identical include TDP (both 15 W), slot width (both IGP), memory type (both System Shared), memory bus width (both System Shared), memory bandwidth (both System Dependent), display outputs (both Portable Device Dependent), OpenGL (both 4.6), and Vulkan (both 1.4). The AMD part has no power connectors listed, while the Intel part has a null value for that field.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has an average benchmark score of zero, as no benchmark entries are recorded for it.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon 860M’s percentile ranking?

A: It sits at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, has an average score of 26421, which is 0.1% higher.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Xe have more shading units than the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: Yes, the Iris Xe has 640 shading units, while the Radeon 860M has 512. Despite this, the Radeon 860M records a higher FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS versus 1.856 TFLOPS for the Intel part, due to its much higher boost clock of 3000 MHz versus 1450 MHz.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Xe support ray tracing?

A: The database lists no ray tracing cores for the Intel Iris Xe. The AMD Radeon 860M includes 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s, compared to 29.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Iris Xe. The texture rate also favors AMD: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 58.00 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the FP16 performance ratio for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M records 3.072 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16/FP32 ratio. The Intel Iris Xe records 3.712 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in every measured benchmark category in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and Vulkan score of 30043 are the only recorded performance numbers for either GPU. The 860M also wins on pixel rate (48.00 GPixel/s vs 29.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (96.00 GTexel/s vs 58.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (3.072 TFLOPS vs 1.856 TFLOPS). It has a significant boost clock advantage (3000 MHz vs 1450 MHz), a more recent release date (2025 vs 2023), and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing cores. Its 72nd percentile ranking places it near discrete GPUs like the GeForce MX550 and RTX 5060, with deltas under 1%.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile wins on raw unit counts: 640 shading units versus 512, 40 TMUs versus 32, and 20 ROPs versus 16. It also leads in FP16 throughput (3.712 TFLOPS vs 3.072 TFLOPS), which could benefit applications that use half-precision arithmetic, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio indicates a design emphasis on reduced-precision compute. The Iris Xe also has an earlier release date (2023-01-03) and a listed successor, Arc Graphics-M, suggesting it is an older generation. In the database, however, the Intel part has zero recorded benchmark scores, so any advantage in unit counts or FP16 remains theoretical rather than measured.