AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two directly comparable benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER. Both tests are from the Geekbench suite, covering OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. The NVIDIA card wins both tests by very large margins, and the deltas are among the steepest recorded in the database for these two products.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 860M scores 22,759 points. The RTX 4070 SUPER scores 172,795 points. That is a delta of -86.8% for the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU delivers roughly 7.6 times the raw OpenCL compute throughput. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon 860M scores 30,043 points, while the RTX 4070 SUPER reaches 205,624 points. The delta is -85.4%, placing the NVIDIA card about 6.8 times ahead. The Vulkan gap is slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap, but still dominant.

The head-to-head record is 2 wins for the RTX 4070 SUPER and 0 wins for the Radeon 860M. No benchmark in the database shows the AMD integrated part ahead. The pattern is consistent: the RTX 4070 SUPER holds a massive lead in both compute APIs tested. The Radeon 860M's Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score relative to its own baseline, suggesting the RDNA 3.5 architecture handles the Vulkan path more efficiently, but that improvement is nowhere near enough to challenge the discrete NVIDIA GPU.

When placed against the broader database, the Radeon 860M sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX 4070 SUPER sits at the 83rd percentile. That 11-point percentile gap understates the actual performance chasm because the percentile scale compresses at the upper end. The RTX 4070 SUPER's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 43,223, while the Radeon 860M's average is 26,401. That is a 63.7% higher average for the NVIDIA card, even when including the RTX 4070 SUPER's additional workload results (PassMark tests, 3DMark) that the AMD part does not have in the database.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the Radeon 860M's average score of 26,401 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421), within 0.3% of the RTX 5060 (26,331), within 0.6% of the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553), and within 1.1% of the RTX A4000 (26,683). The RTX 4070 SUPER's average of 43,223 sits within 0.1% of the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), within 0.1% of the RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268), within 0.2% of the Quadro M6000 (43,301), and within 1% of the RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667). The RTX 4070 SUPER's nearest rivals are all high-end desktop or workstation parts, while the Radeon 860M's nearest rivals are a mix of mobile and older desktop GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 43,223 across all recorded tests, compared to 26,401 for the AMD Radeon 860M. That is a 63.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How large is the gap in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER scores 205,624 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon 860M scores 30,043. The delta is -85.4% for the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is approximately 6.8 times faster in that test.

Q: Does the Radeon 860M win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 0 wins for the Radeon 860M and 2 wins for the RTX 4070 SUPER across the two directly compared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan).

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 5060?

A: The Radeon 860M's average score of 26,401 is 0.3% higher than the RTX 5060's average of 26,331. The two are effectively tied in average performance.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 860M ranks at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 4070 SUPER ranks at the 83rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 172,795 compared to 22,759 for the Radeon 860M, a delta of -86.8% for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon 860M uses the Krackan Point chip, built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER uses the AD104 chip, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 40 series. The process nodes differ: the AMD part is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry. The AMD chip is newer, released on 2025-02-28, whereas the RTX 4070 SUPER was released on 2024-01-16.

The transistor budgets are dramatically different. The RTX 4070 SUPER contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, but its integrated nature means it shares a package with the CPU rather than existing as a discrete die. The RTX 4070 SUPER is a dual-slot discrete card measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 42 mm in width. The Radeon 860M is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no physical dimensions recorded, since it depends on the portable device it is installed in.

The memory subsystems share nothing. The Radeon 860M uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth, with a memory clock of 1313 MHz or 21 Gbps effective. The AMD part's memory clock is listed as "System Shared" as well, meaning it runs at whatever speed the host system's RAM provides.

The compute units diverge sharply. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 56 RT cores. The NVIDIA card also includes 224 tensor cores, a feature the AMD IGP does not list. The pixel rate for the RTX 4070 SUPER is 198.0 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Radeon 860M. The texture rate is 554.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 35.48 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 35.48 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1).

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a base clock of 1980 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz. The AMD part's boost clock is notably higher, but the much larger shader count on the NVIDIA card overwhelms that clock advantage. Power consumption differs by an order of magnitude: the Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has a TDP of 220 W and requires a 16-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs: the Radeon 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs on the NVIDIA card are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the AMD IGP's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation between these two products. The RTX 4070 SUPER is a discrete, high-power desktop GPU with dedicated GDDR6X memory, a 220 W TDP, and a 35.48 TFLOPS FP32 throughput. The Radeon 860M is an integrated GPU with shared system memory, a 15 W TDP, and 3.072 TFLOPS. The benchmark results confirm the hardware specification gap: the RTX 4070 SUPER leads by 86.8% in OpenCL and 85.4% in Vulkan, and it wins both head-to-head tests.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the RTX 4070 SUPER is the only option in this comparison. Its average benchmark score of 43,223 places it near the RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667) and Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), which are both high-end parts. The Radeon 860M's average of 26,401 places it near the MX550 and RTX 5060, which are entry-level or mobile parts. The data does not support any scenario where the Radeon 860M matches or exceeds the RTX 4070 SUPER in the recorded benchmarks.

The RTX 4070 SUPER is already marked as end-of-life in the database, with a successor in the GeForce 50 series. The Radeon 860M is still active, released in February 2025. That production status difference may matter for long-term availability, but it does not change the performance gap. The Radeon 860M's role is clearly in low-power, portable devices where the 15 W TDP and integrated design are advantages. The RTX 4070 SUPER's role is in desktop systems where the 220 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 16-pin power connector are acceptable trade-offs for the performance on offer.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon 860M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER |

|-------|-----------------|-------------------------------|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 600 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2475 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 504.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 7,168 |

| TMUs | 32 | 224 |

| ROPs | 16 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 224 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 198.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 554.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) | 35.48 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 220 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2024-01-16 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | N/A | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 599 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outscores the Radeon 860M by 150,036 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead is 175,581 points. The NVIDIA card also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests in the database, and it sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs. The RTX 4070 SUPER's nearest rivals include the RTX 4090 Mobile and Quadro M6000, which are both high-end parts, confirming its placement in the upper tier of the database.

The Radeon 860M's only recorded wins are relative to its own nearest rivals, not against the RTX 4070 SUPER. It is 0.3% ahead of the RTX 5060, 0.1% ahead of the MX550, 0.6% ahead of the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and 1.1% ahead of the RTX A4000. Those margins are all within noise, but they show that the Radeon 860M is competitive with entry-level discrete GPUs from previous generations. Its Vulkan score of 30,043 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 22,759, suggesting the RDNA 3.5 driver stack handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently, but the database does not contain any Vulkan result for the RTX 4070 SUPER's nearest rivals to compare against.

The use cases diverge along power and form factor lines. The Radeon 860M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and no slot width. It is designed for portable devices where the host system provides shared memory and the display outputs are determined by the laptop or handheld. The RTX 4070 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card, 267 mm long, with a 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. It requires a PCIe 4.0 x16 slot and a case that can accommodate its 42 mm width.

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins in every compute-heavy scenario the database measures: OpenCL, Vulkan, PassMark DirectX tests, PassMark GPU compute, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Radeon 860M has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test against the NVIDIA card. The data does not support any workload where the integrated AMD part would be preferred over the discrete NVIDIA part. The only reason to choose the Radeon 860M is its integrated nature, its 15 W power envelope, and its portability, none of which are captured in the benchmark scores.