AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains two synthetic benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 860M, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q has no recorded benchmark entries in this dataset. That asymmetry shapes the comparison: the 860M can be positioned against its nearest rivals, but the RTX 4050 Max-Q must be analyzed primarily through its architectural profile and the 860M’s relative standing.

The AMD Radeon 860M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30043. Its average benchmark score across recorded tests is 26401. This places the 860M at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The RTX 4050 Max-Q, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile, a placeholder position indicating no measured performance data has been logged for it.

The 860M’s nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26421, a delta of -0.1% relative to the 860M, meaning the MX550 is essentially tied with the AMD part. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26331, a delta of +0.3%, so the 860M edges past that GPU by a fraction of a percent. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26553, a delta of -0.6%, placing it slightly ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26683, a delta of -1.1%, making it the strongest of the four rivals listed. The 860M therefore sits in a tight cluster where all four comparison GPUs fall within roughly 1.1% of its average score.

Because the RTX 4050 Max-Q has no benchmark entries, its raw compute figures can be compared against the 860M’s theoretical outputs. The NVIDIA part lists FP32 performance of 8.218 TFLOPS, while the AMD part lists 3.072 TFLOPS. That is a 2.67x advantage for the RTX 4050 Max-Q in raw single-precision throughput. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA as well: 77.04 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA: 128.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. These are theoretical peaks, not measured application results, but they indicate a substantial compute ceiling difference between the two designs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. Both foundries are TSMC, but the process nodes differ by one step, with AMD on the finer 4 nm node.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only documented for the NVIDIA part. The RTX 4050 Max-Q contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The AMD part lists unknown transistor count and die size, so no density comparison can be made from the data.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster output pipelines, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, 48 raster output pipelines, and 20 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 80 tensor cores, a feature class the AMD part does not list. Clock behavior differs as well: the 860M runs a 600 MHz base clock and a 3000 MHz boost clock; the RTX 4050 Max-Q runs a 1140 MHz base clock and a 1605 MHz boost clock. The AMD part boosts to nearly double the NVIDIA part’s boost frequency, but the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base and carries far more execution units.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 860M uses system shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as system dependent. Its memory bandwidth is described as system dependent. The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses dedicated 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus, with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the NVIDIA part a fixed bandwidth figure, while the AMD part’s bandwidth depends entirely on the host platform’s memory configuration.

Power targets also differ. The 860M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q is rated at 35 W TDP. Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. API support is identical for both: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are marked as active production status.

The release timeline shows the RTX 4050 Max-Q launched on 2023-01-02, with the GeForce 30 Mobile as its predecessor and GeForce 50 Mobile as its successor. The 860M launched on 2025-02-28, with Navi II IGP as its predecessor. The NVIDIA part is therefore older by roughly two years in the database timeline.

Where Each One Wins

The 860M wins in the measured benchmark domain. Its average score of 26401 places it at the 72nd percentile, and its nearest rivals all land within a narrow band around that figure. The Vulkan score of 30043 is notably higher than the OpenCL score of 22759, suggesting the RDNA 3.5 architecture responds particularly well to the Vulkan workload in the database. The 72nd percentile ranking indicates the 860M outperforms the majority of all GPUs in the database, a strong result for an integrated graphics solution.

The RTX 4050 Max-Q wins on theoretical compute and memory resources. Its FP32 figure of 8.218 TFLOPS dwarfs the 860M’s 3.072 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 77.04 GPixel/s and texture rate of 128.4 GTexel/s both exceed the AMD part’s corresponding figures. The dedicated 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, platform-independent memory subsystem, whereas the 860M relies on shared system memory with bandwidth that varies by host system. The NVIDIA part’s 80 tensor cores give it a hardware feature that the AMD part does not list at all.

The RTX 4050 Max-Q also carries a higher TDP at 35 W versus 15 W, which in a mobile context typically allows for more sustained performance headroom, though the database does not include measured power draw data. The 860M’s lower TDP makes it suited to platforms with tighter thermal and power budgets, but the data does not quantify real-world power consumption for either part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q has an average score of 0, meaning no benchmark results are recorded for it.

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

A: The 860M is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550, which scores 26421 with a delta of -0.1%. It is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000.

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

A: The Radeon 860M lists 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q lists 8.218 TFLOPS, which is roughly 2.67 times higher.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W TDP. The RTX 4050 Max-Q is rated at 35 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data presents two very different profiles. The AMD Radeon 860M is a measured performer with a 72nd percentile ranking, an average score of 26401, and a Vulkan result of 30043 that indicates strong API-specific behavior. Its nearest rivals cluster within roughly 1.1%, so the 860M occupies a competitive tier among integrated and low-power discrete GPUs. The 15 W TDP and system shared memory make it a platform-dependent solution whose bandwidth scales with the host system’s memory.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q is an unmeasured part in this database, with no benchmark entries and a placeholder 50th percentile. Its theoretical specifications, however, show a much larger execution resource pool: 2560 shading units versus 512, 80 texture units versus 32, 48 ROPs versus 16, 20 ray tracing cores versus 8, and 80 tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely. Its dedicated 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth removes the platform dependency that limits the 860M. The FP32 gap of 8.218 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS suggests the RTX 4050 Max-Q would likely dominate in compute-heavy scenarios, but no measured scores exist to confirm that expectation.

For users relying on recorded benchmark data, the 860M is the only part with verified performance in this comparison. For users prioritizing theoretical compute resources and dedicated memory, the RTX 4050 Max-Q presents the stronger specification sheet. The 860M fits systems where a 15 W integrated GPU with near-MX550 performance is sufficient. The RTX 4050 Max-Q fits systems where the higher 35 W TDP and dedicated memory are acceptable trade-offs for the larger compute and tensor core configuration. The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the two, so a direct measured comparison remains unavailable.