AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison scenario. The AMD Radeon 860M carries two benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry means a direct head-to-head score comparison cannot be constructed from the available measurements. Instead, the analysis must rely on the absolute performance indicators and the relative positioning data for the AMD part.

The AMD Radeon 860M achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26,401. This average places it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The nearest rival data for the AMD part provides useful context: the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421 on average, which is 0.1% higher than the Radeon 860M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331, or 0.3% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, which is 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26,683, or 1.1% higher. These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating that the Radeon 860M sits in a very tight competitive cluster despite its integrated nature.

For the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation, the database shows an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs. With no benchmark entries and no nearest rivals listed, the quantitative comparison stops there. The data cannot substantiate any performance win for the NVIDIA part in synthetic workloads because no scores exist to analyze. The AMD part, by contrast, has demonstrable measurements that anchor its position firmly between the MX550 and the RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary in average score.

The gap between the two parts in raw compute capability is substantial when examining the specification-level throughput figures. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD part delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That is a 4.2x difference in raw floating-point throughput. The pixel rate for the NVIDIA part is 101.5 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a 2.1x difference. The texture rate shows 203.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 96.00 GTexel/s for AMD, again a 2.1x gap. These figures suggest the NVIDIA part should dominate in fill-rate-bound and compute-heavy workloads, but the absence of actual benchmark scores for the NVIDIA part prevents confirmation through measured results.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401 across its recorded tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,759, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 30,043.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Radeon 860M sits within 1.1% of all four listed rivals. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 is 0.1% higher, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary is 0.6% higher, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is 1.1% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 is 0.3% lower.

Q: What percentile does each GPU occupy in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M falls in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation falls in the 50th percentile.

Q: What is the FP32 throughput difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 12.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also matches that figure for FP16 at 12.99 TFLOPS, while the AMD part delivers 3.072 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a boost clock of 2115 MHz. The AMD part also starts from a lower base clock of 600 MHz versus 1635 MHz for the NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process node, built around the Krackan Point chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process node, built around the AD107 chip, and belongs to the Ada-MW generation.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct density comparison is possible. The manufacturing process difference (4 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for NVIDIA) suggests the AMD part uses a more advanced node, but the NVIDIA part packs far more transistors into a known die area.

The compute resources show a wide gulf. The NVIDIA part has 3,072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores, while the AMD part includes 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part's 96 tensor cores are notable because they enable AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD part cannot match through dedicated hardware.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The AMD Radeon 860M uses system shared memory, with a bus width and memory type both listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the AMD part relies on the host system's memory configuration, while the NVIDIA part has dedicated VRAM with a fixed bandwidth figure.

Both GPUs support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The PCIe interface differs, with the AMD part using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the NVIDIA part using PCIe 4.0 x16. The power envelope also differs, with the AMD part rated at 15 W TDP and the NVIDIA part at 50 W TDP. Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The AMD part's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

The Verdict

The database presents a lopsided evidence situation. The AMD Radeon 860M has concrete benchmark scores that place it at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 26,401. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. Based strictly on recorded measurements, the AMD part is the only one with verified performance data.

However, the specification-level figures in the database tell a different story about raw capability. The NVIDIA part's FP32 throughput of 12.99 TFLOPS is 4.2x higher than the AMD part's 3.072 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has 6x the shading units (3,072 versus 512), 3x the TMUs (96 versus 32), 3x the ROPs (48 versus 16), 3x the ray tracing cores (24 versus 8), and 96 tensor cores versus none. The NVIDIA part's pixel rate of 101.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 203.0 GTexel/s both more than double the AMD part's 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s.

The AMD part counters with a higher boost clock (3000 MHz versus 2115 MHz), a smaller process node (4 nm versus 5 nm), and a much lower TDP (15 W versus 50 W). The AMD part's percentile ranking of 72 versus the NVIDIA part's 50 suggests that, among the GPUs the database has measured, the AMD part outperforms a larger fraction of the field. But that ranking for the NVIDIA part is based on no measured scores, so it may reflect incomplete data rather than true performance.

For a user selecting between these two, the data cannot support a definitive performance verdict for the NVIDIA part because no measurements exist. The AMD part has verified scores and a known competitive position. The NVIDIA part has superior specifications on nearly every compute metric but lacks any recorded benchmark evidence in the database. The choice depends on whether the user trusts specification-level throughput estimates over measured results. The data alone favors the AMD part for verified performance, while the specification data favors the NVIDIA part for theoretical capability.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

Process and die: The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA chip has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die with a density of 118.9M per mm². The AMD chip's transistor count, die size, and density are unknown.

Clocks: The AMD part has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1635 MHz and a boost clock of 2115 MHz. The AMD part boosts 885 MHz higher but starts 1035 MHz lower.

Memory: The AMD part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock (16 Gbps effective).

Compute units: The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores.

Throughput: The AMD part delivers 48.00 GPixel/s, 96.00 GTexel/s, 3.072 TFLOPS FP32, and 3.072 TFLOPS FP16. The NVIDIA part delivers 101.5 GPixel/s, 203.0 GTexel/s, 12.99 TFLOPS FP32, and 12.99 TFLOPS FP16.

Power and interface: The AMD part has a 15 W TDP and uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The NVIDIA part has a 50 W TDP and uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both have no power connectors and are listed as IGP slot width.

Release timeline: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a release date of 2023-03-20, while the AMD Radeon 860M has a release date of 2025-02-28.

APIs: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in the measured performance category. It has an average benchmark score of 26,401, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,043. It holds a 72nd percentile ranking versus the NVIDIA part's 50th percentile. Its nearest rival data shows it trading blows within 1.1% of the GeForce MX550, RTX 5060, RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, and RTX A4000. The AMD part also wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus 50 W for the NVIDIA part, which is a 3.3x lower power draw. Its boost clock of 3000 MHz is 885 MHz higher, and its 4 nm process node is one generation ahead of the NVIDIA part's 5 nm node.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation wins on raw specification throughput. Its FP32 compute of 12.99 TFLOPS is 4.2x higher than the AMD part's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 101.5 GPixel/s is 2.1x higher, and its texture rate of 203.0 GTexel/s is 2.1x higher. It has 6x the shading units, 3x the TMUs, 3x the ROPs, 3x the ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores where the AMD part has none. Its memory subsystem is dedicated: 8 GB of GDDR6 with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the AMD part's system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also has a wider PCIe interface at x16 versus x8, and it has a known transistor count of 18,900 million on a 159 mm² die, while the AMD part's transistor details remain unknown.

For specific use cases, the data splits cleanly. The AMD part suits scenarios where measured synthetic performance and low power draw matter most, given its verified scores and 15 W envelope. The NVIDIA part suits scenarios where raw throughput, dedicated memory bandwidth, and tensor core acceleration are priorities, based on its specification sheet. The absence of benchmark data for the NVIDIA part means its practical performance cannot be confirmed, but its specification advantages are unambiguous. The AMD part's verified scores make it the only one of the two with confirmed real-world measurement data in the database.