AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and the AMD Radeon 860M is a study in extremes: a 2018 workstation flagship built for rendering and compute versus a 2025 integrated graphics processor designed for mobility and efficiency. The data reveals a massive performance gulf, but also a clear divergence in purpose that goes beyond raw benchmark scores. The Quadro RTX 8000 dominates every measured metric, yet the Radeon 860M occupies a completely different niche where its low power draw and modern architecture are the primary features, not afterthoughts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 28,421, compared to the AMD Radeon 860M's 26,401. Despite this, the Quadro's percentile rank is only 74 versus the Radeon's 72, indicating both sit in a similar performance tier relative to all other GPUs.

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

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 is dramatically ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 101,883 versus 22,759, a 347.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 122,637 versus 30,043, a 308.2% lead. This means the Quadro is roughly four times faster in these workloads.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring the TU102 chip with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. The Radeon 860M uses AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC, with the Krackan Point chip, though its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses System Shared memory, meaning its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host system, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has a TDP of 260 W and requires a 600 W power supply, needing a dual-slot cooler and a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector. The Radeon 860M has a TDP of just 15 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, and is described as "Portable Device Dependent" for its display outputs.

Q: Which GPU is newer and still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M is the newer product, released on 2025-02-28, and its production status is "Active." The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 was released on 2018-08-12 and is marked as "End-of-life," with its successor being Workstation Ampere.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of two distinct usage scenarios. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins decisively in raw compute performance, holding a 2-0 record in the head-to-head benchmarks. Its 48 GB of memory and 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth are geared toward massive datasets and professional workloads like 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and AI training, where the sheer capacity and throughput are non-negotiable. The Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 576 tensor cores make it a formidable compute engine, and its 72 RT cores provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing.

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in every metric related to efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 260 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are paramount. While it lacks the raw power, its modern RDNA 3.5 architecture and 4 nm process node mean it can deliver a reasonable level of performance in a power envelope that the Quadro cannot approach. The Radeon's 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is still useful for everyday tasks, light gaming, and content creation, but its real win is being a capable integrated solution that requires no additional power connectors or dedicated cooling.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different eras and design goals. The Quadro RTX 8000 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, a 12 nm design from TSMC. It houses 18,600 million transistors on a massive 754 mm² die, a size that allows for 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, making it a first-generation ray tracing and AI-acceleration powerhouse. Its memory subsystem is a dedicated 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, a configuration designed for professional visualization and data-heavy compute tasks.

The Radeon 860M, in contrast, is based on AMD's newer RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a much more advanced 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, Krackan Point, is a mobile-focused design, and while its transistor count and die size are unknown, its 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are a fraction of the Quadro's. It also has 8 RT cores but no equivalent to NVIDIA's tensor cores. Crucially, the Radeon uses System Shared memory, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM for both capacity and bandwidth. This fundamental difference in memory architecture is a major reason for the performance gap, as the Quadro's dedicated, high-bandwidth VRAM is far superior for data-intensive workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal stark contrasts in nearly every field. The Quadro RTX 8000 has a base clock of 1395 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz, while the Radeon 860M has a much lower base clock of 600 MHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 3000 MHz. The Quadro's memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the Radeon's is listed as "System Shared." The memory size, type, and bus width all follow this pattern: 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus for the Quadro versus "System Shared" for the Radeon.

Other key differences include the FP16 performance, where the Quadro achieves 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio versus the Radeon's 3.072 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and the texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Radeon using PCIe 4.0 x8. The Quadro is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, while the Radeon is an IGP with no dimensions listed. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 9,999 USD, while the Radeon has no listed MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both GPUs have scores show a complete sweep by the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro scores 101,883 versus the Radeon's 22,759. This represents a 347.7% delta, meaning the Quadro is over four times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This massive margin is unsurprising given the differences in shading units, memory bandwidth, and dedicated compute resources.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar, though slightly less extreme, trend. The Quadro scores 122,637, while the Radeon manages 30,043. This is a 308.2% delta, still a massive advantage for the Quadro. The fact that the Vulkan delta is slightly smaller than the OpenCL delta suggests that the Radeon's newer architecture might be relatively more efficient in this API, but it is still far behind. The data confirms that for any benchmark where raw performance is the metric, the Quadro RTX 8000 is in a different league entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any user needing maximum compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the only choice. Its 347.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 308.2% lead in Vulkan, combined with its 48 GB of dedicated memory, make it a superior tool for professional rendering, simulation, and data science. Its 74th percentile rank among all GPUs, despite being a 2018 product, speaks to its lasting power. The Quadro is for a workstation that must handle the most demanding tasks without compromise.

The AMD Radeon 860M is not a competitor in that arena. Its 15 W TDP and integrated nature make it the obvious pick for a portable device where battery life and thermal constraints are the primary design drivers. Its 72nd percentile rank shows it is no slouch for an IGP, and its 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is respectable. For a user who needs a laptop for everyday productivity, light content creation, and occasional gaming without a discrete GPU, the Radeon 860M is the sensible choice. The data suggests that these two GPUs should never be compared on raw performance, but rather on the context of their deployment: one is a heavy-duty professional tool, and the other is an efficient, integrated component for mobility.