AMD Radeon 860M vs Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a unique challenge for direct comparison: the AMD Radeon 860M has two benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores at all. This absence of data for the Intel part means the head-to-head comparison rests entirely on the AMD side's measurements and the relative positioning of its nearest rivals.

The AMD Radeon 860M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26401. This places the 860M at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms a substantial majority of the graphics processors tracked. The Vulkan score, in particular, stands out as significantly higher than the OpenCL score, suggesting that the architecture responds well to the Vulkan API's lower-level overhead and parallel execution model.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the AMD part, the data shows a remarkably tight cluster of performance. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 posts an average score of 26421, which is a mere 0.1 percent higher than the 860M's average. This places the two parts essentially at parity, with a difference so small it falls within typical run-to-run variance. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, a much larger discrete card, scores 26553, coming in 0.6 percent above the 860M. The NVIDIA RTX A4000, a professional workstation GPU, scores 26683, which is 1.1 percent higher. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26331, which is 0.3 percent below the 860M, meaning the integrated Radeon part edges out a current-generation discrete NVIDIA offering in this aggregate metric.

This clustering of scores within a 1.1 percent band is striking. The 860M, an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, sits in the same performance neighborhood as multiple discrete GPUs. The data implies that for the workloads captured in these benchmarks, the 860M's execution resources are sufficient to keep pace with dedicated cards that historically would have held a significant advantage. The absence of any benchmark entries for the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile means its actual performance cannot be quantified from the database, and any conclusion about the head-to-head must account for this gap in measurements.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550?

A: The database shows the MX550 achieves an average score of 26421, which is 0.1 percent higher than the 860M's average of 26401. This places the two GPUs at near-identical performance levels, with the difference being negligible in real-world terms.

Q: What is the performance gap between the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060?

A: The RTX 5060 records an average score of 26331, which is 0.3 percent lower than the 860M's average. This means the integrated AMD part actually holds a slight lead over this discrete NVIDIA GPU in the aggregate benchmark data.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. This makes direct quantitative comparison impossible with the available data.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon 860M's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The 860M sits at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database. This indicates it performs better than 72 percent of the graphics processors recorded, a strong showing for an integrated solution.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 860M in Vulkan compared to OpenCL?

A: The 860M scores 30043 in Geekbench Vulkan and 22759 in Geekbench OpenCL. The Vulkan score is approximately 32 percent higher, suggesting the architecture extracts more performance from the Vulkan API than from OpenCL.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon 860M?

A: The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for the 860M is 26401. This figure serves as the reference point for comparisons against its nearest rivals in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two integrated GPUs is substantial and explains much of the expected performance divergence. The AMD Radeon 860M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile family, and uses the Krackan Point chip. In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile relies on the Generation 12.2 architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, and is part of the HD Graphics-M family based on Raptor Lake.

The execution resources differ by a factor of two in nearly every category. The AMD part fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This doubling of resources directly translates to pixel and texture throughput: the 860M delivers 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, while the Intel part manages 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s. The AMD GPU is 3.75 times faster in pixel fill rate and texturing rate, a massive advantage that will manifest in any resolution- or texture-bound workload.

Ray tracing provides another clear differentiator. The AMD Radeon 860M includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has no ray tracing hardware at all. This means the AMD part can accelerate ray-traced effects, whereas the Intel solution would need to rely on software fallbacks or forgo such effects entirely. The AMD architecture also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with the 12_2 feature level, while the Intel part only reaches DirectX 12 with the 12_1 feature level. This difference in API support affects which games and applications can run with full feature sets.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The AMD 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, a five-fold boost range that allows it to scale aggressively under load. The Intel part starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 1600 MHz, a more modest range. The AMD's higher boost clock, combined with its doubled execution resources, produces a theoretical FP32 throughput of 3.072 TFLOPS. The Intel part manages 819.2 GFLOPS in FP32, which is roughly 3.75 times lower. For FP16 workloads, the AMD part delivers 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Intel part achieves 1.638 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at twice the rate of single-precision.

Both parts are integrated GPUs with a 15 W TDP and system-shared memory, so their bandwidth is system dependent. However, the bus interface differs: the AMD 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part connects via a Ring Bus. This could influence how quickly each GPU can access system memory, though the practical impact depends on the host platform's memory configuration.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one point unequivocally: the AMD Radeon 860M is a far more capable graphics processor than the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile. The 860M's 72nd percentile ranking, its average score of 26401, and its position alongside discrete GPUs like the MX550 and RTX 5060 all indicate a part that can handle serious graphical workloads. The Intel UHD 770 Mobile has no recorded benchmark scores, which means the database offers no evidence of comparable performance. Its architecture, with half the shading units, a quarter of the pixel throughput, and no ray tracing support, points to a part designed for basic display output rather than demanding 3D rendering.

For users who need integrated graphics that can play modern games, accelerate creative applications, or handle GPU-accelerated compute, the AMD Radeon 860M is the clear choice based on the available data. Its Vulkan score of 30043 suggests strong performance in modern game engines that leverage this API. The near-parity with the discrete MX550 and the slight lead over the RTX 5060 in aggregate scoring reinforce this conclusion.

The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile, based on the recorded specifications, serves a different purpose. Its lower clock speeds, reduced execution resources, and lack of ray tracing hardware indicate a solution for basic productivity, video playback, and light 2D workloads. The database contains no performance measurements to contradict this assessment. Users who require any significant 3D capability should look to the AMD part, while the Intel solution suffices only for the most undemanding graphical tasks.

Specification Differences

The two integrated GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The manufacturing process shows AMD at 4 nm via TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm at its own foundry. The AMD part is based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture and the Krackan Point chip, while Intel relies on Generation 12.2 with the Raptor Lake chip. Release dates also differ: the AMD Radeon 860M launched on 2025-02-28, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile launched on 2023-01-03.

Clock speeds show a significant gap. The AMD base clock is 600 MHz with a 3000 MHz boost, while the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The AMD GPU operates at roughly double the clock speed at boost, compounding its resource advantage.

Execution units are doubled on the AMD side: 512 shading units versus 256, 32 TMUs versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 8. The AMD part includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part has none. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s for AMD versus 12.80 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.072 TFLOPS for AMD versus 819.2 GFLOPS for Intel.

FP16 performance reveals a different ratio. The AMD part achieves 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration. The Intel part achieves 1.638 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its throughput when operating on FP16 data. This gives Intel a relative advantage in FP16-heavy workloads, though the absolute FP16 throughput still favors AMD.

API support differs in DirectX version. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. The AMD part has a predecessor listed as Navi II IGP, while the Intel part has a successor listed as Arc Graphics-M. Both parts carry a 15 W TDP, use system-shared memory, and are classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in nearly every measurable category. Its 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance makes it suitable for general-purpose GPU compute, including physics simulations, video encoding, and machine learning inference at modest scales. The 8 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced lighting and reflections, a feature completely absent from the Intel part. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support ensures compatibility with the latest game features, while the 72nd percentile ranking places it among the top quarter of all GPUs in the database.

The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile wins in one specific area: FP16 throughput per watt of FP32 capability. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio means it can process half-precision data at 1.638 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate. This could provide an advantage in certain AI inference workloads that operate on FP16 data, though the absolute throughput remains lower than the AMD part's 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 capability.

For gaming, the AMD part is the only viable option. The 860M's Vulkan score of 30043 indicates strong performance in modern titles that use Vulkan, and its OpenCL score of 22759 shows solid compute capability. The Intel part has no recorded scores and lacks the execution resources to compete. For basic desktop use, video playback, and office productivity, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile would suffice, but it offers no performance headroom for anything more demanding.

The data suggests a clear use-case split: the AMD Radeon 860M belongs in systems where integrated graphics must handle real 3D workloads, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile serves only as a display output solution for systems with no graphical demands. The AMD part's near-parity with discrete GPUs like the MX550 and its slight lead over the RTX 5060 in aggregate scoring make it a legitimate option for light gaming and creative work on integrated graphics. The Intel part, with no benchmark presence and significantly reduced specifications, occupies the lowest tier of graphical capability.