AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 in completely different segments of the GPU landscape. The Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics processor from the Krackan Point chip, built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, and it carries a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 26,401 in the database places it within a tight cluster of discrete mobile and desktop parts. The NVIDIA H800 SXM5, by contrast, is a server accelerator based on the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, and it holds a 50th percentile ranking with no recorded benchmarks and an average score of zero. The data shows that the H800 SXM5 is not positioned for the same workload class as the 860M, so any direct comparison is fundamentally a contrast in design goals rather than a head-to-head contest.

The Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with user-facing benchmark results. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and Vulkan score of 30,043 produce an average of 26,401. The nearest rivals in the database confirm its standing: the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 sits 0.1% below, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 sits 0.3% above, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary sits 0.6% below, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 sits 1.1% below. These margins are small, indicating that the 860M delivers performance comparable to those established parts. The H800 SXM5, with no benchmark entries, cannot be placed on that same scale. The data indicates that the 860M is the appropriate choice for systems requiring a compact, low-power integrated GPU with measured results, while the H800 SXM5 is a specialized server module whose capabilities are defined by its massive memory, tensor core count, and compute throughput rather than by any recorded gaming or general graphics scores.

Architecture Differences

The two parts share a foundry: both are fabricated by TSMC, but on different process nodes. The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 uses a 5 nm process. The 860M is an integrated graphics processor with no separate die size or transistor count listed, whereas the H800 SXM5 is a discrete module with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

Architecturally, the 860M uses RDNA 3.5 and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The H800 SXM5 uses Hopper and belongs to the Server Hopper generation. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The H800 SXM5 has 16,896 shading units, 528 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, and 528 tensor cores. The 860M does not list tensor cores, while the H800 SXM5 does not list ray tracing cores. The H800 SXM5 is clearly built around tensor core compute, with 528 tensor cores available for accelerated workloads.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The H800 SXM5 has 80 GB of HBM3 memory on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective data rate. Clock speeds also diverge sharply: the 860M runs at a 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost, while the H800 SXM5 runs at a 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. The 860M boosts higher, but the H800 SXM5 compensates with far more execution units.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in the domain of measured general-purpose and graphics benchmarks. The database records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. These results demonstrate that the 860M is a functional, active graphics processor suitable for portable devices, with a 72nd percentile standing across all GPUs. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor, with no power connectors and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, indicate a part designed for integration into mobile systems. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a full modern API feature set.

The NVIDIA H800 SXM5 wins in raw compute capacity and memory resources. Its FP32 throughput is 59.30 TFLOPS, its FP16 throughput is 237.2 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, and its texture rate is 926.6 GTexel/s. The 80 GB HBM3 memory with 3.36 TB/s bandwidth is an order of magnitude beyond anything the 860M can access. The H800 SXM5 also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and requires an 8-pin EPS power connector with a suggested PSU of 1100 W. Its 700 W TDP reflects a server-class module with no display outputs, intended for compute environments rather than interactive graphics. The 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which positions it as a balanced general-purpose part rather than a specialized compute accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA H800 SXM5 outperform the AMD Radeon 860M in the database benchmarks?

A: No direct comparison is possible from the recorded data. The H800 SXM5 has no benchmark entries and an average score of zero, while the 860M has recorded Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 22,759 and 30,043.

Q: What is the memory situation for each GPU?

A: The 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The H800 SXM5 has 80 GB of HBM3 memory on a 5120-bit bus with 3.36 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The 860M has a 600 MHz base clock and a 3000 MHz boost clock. The H800 SXM5 has a 1095 MHz base clock and a 1755 MHz boost clock, so the 860M boosts significantly higher.

Q: What API support does each GPU offer?

A: The 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 SXM5 lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the H800 SXM5 lists tensor cores, with 528 of them. The 860M does not list tensor cores but does include 8 ray tracing cores.

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

A: The 860M averages 26,401 points. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 sits 0.1% below, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 sits 0.3% above, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary sits 0.6% below, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 sits 1.1% below.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA H800 SXM5. The 860M has two recorded results, while the H800 SXM5 has none. The most meaningful numerical comparison comes from the 860M's nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score of 26,401 places it between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26,331 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421. The spread across all four nearest rivals is narrow: the MX550 is 0.1% lower, the RTX 5060 is 0.3% higher, the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary is 0.6% lower, and the RTX A4000 is 1.1% lower. These delta percentages show that the 860M performs within a single percentage point of four established GPUs, a tight grouping that indicates consistent performance around the 26,400 point mark.

The two Geekbench results for the 860M show internal variation. Its Vulkan score of 30,043 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 22,759, a difference of roughly 32%. This suggests that the 860M handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently than OpenCL workloads in the recorded tests. The average of the two scores, 26,401, sits closer to the Vulkan result than to the OpenCL result, but the OpenCL score still contributes meaningfully to the final figure.

For the H800 SXM5, the absence of benchmark data means its compute capabilities are expressed only through its specification sheet. Its FP32 throughput of 59.30 TFLOPS is roughly 19 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 237.2 TFLOPS is roughly 77 times the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 926.6 GTexel/s is roughly 9.7 times the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 42.12 GPixel/s is slightly below the 860M's 48.00 GPixel/s, an unusual result given the H800 SXM5's larger silicon. These figures indicate that the H800 SXM5 is optimized for throughput-heavy compute tasks, not for pixel processing.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node differs: 4 nm for the 860M, 5 nm for the H800 SXM5. The chip names differ: Krackan Point versus GH100. The architectures differ: RDNA 3.5 versus Hopper. The 860M has no listed transistor count or die size, while the H800 SXM5 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The 860M has a 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost. The H800 SXM5 has a 1095 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost. The memory clock is system-shared for the 860M, while the H800 SXM5 runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major divider. The 860M has system-shared memory, type, bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The H800 SXM5 has 80 GB of HBM3, a 5120-bit bus, and 3.36 TB/s bandwidth. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The H800 SXM5 has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The 860M has no listed tensor cores, and the H800 SXM5 has no listed ray tracing cores.

Compute rates differ substantially. The 860M delivers 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1. The H800 SXM5 delivers 42.12 GPixel/s pixel rate, 926.6 GTexel/s texture rate, 59.30 TFLOPS FP32, and 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 at 4:1. Power and form factor also diverge: the 860M has a 15 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The H800 SXM5 has a 700 W TDP, SXM Module slot width, an 8-pin EPS power connector, a suggested PSU of 1100 W, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The 860M has portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the H800 SXM5 has no display outputs. The 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the H800 SXM5 lists no API support. The 860M was released on 2025-02-28, while the H800 SXM5 was released on 2023-03-20. The H800 SXM5 lists a predecessor (Server Ada) and successor (Server Blackwell); the 860M lists a predecessor (Navi II IGP) but no successor. Both are marked Active in production status.