AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Radeon 860M as the stronger integrated graphics option for general compute workloads, while the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation delivers a far higher raw throughput ceiling for dedicated tasks. The Radeon 860M posts an average benchmark score of 26,401, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has no recorded average score and sits in the 50th percentile, with its benchmark results empty in the database. For users seeking a proven, immediately measurable performance level from an integrated part, the Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with verifiable results. For users who require the architectural capabilities of a discrete-class mobile chip, the RTX 500 offers a fundamentally different hardware profile, but its performance cannot be quantified from the recorded data.

The Radeon 860M is the choice when benchmark evidence matters. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and Vulkan score of 30,043 provide concrete reference points. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation offers no comparable figures, leaving its real-world performance unverified in this database. The Radeon 860M also benefits from a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for power-constrained portable designs, whereas the RTX 500 carries a 35 W TDP, indicating a higher power envelope. The AMD part uses system-shared memory, which simplifies integration but ties performance to system RAM. The NVIDIA part comes with dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a structural advantage for memory-intensive workloads, though the lack of benchmark data prevents confirming that advantage in practice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. 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 500 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process node, built around the AD107 chip. It belongs to the Ada-MW generation. The process node difference gives AMD a smaller lithography, though the NVIDIA chip is a separate, larger design.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has 2,048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part quadruples the shading units, doubles the TMUs and ROPs, and doubles the RT cores. It also adds tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. This structural difference indicates the RTX 500 is designed for workloads that leverage tensor operations, while the Radeon 860M focuses on conventional shader and ray tracing paths.

Memory architecture further separates them. The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a fixed 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the RTX 500 is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The Radeon 860M has no dedicated memory clock because it relies on shared system memory. This makes the NVIDIA part more predictable for memory-bound scenarios, while the AMD part is more flexible but variable.

Clock behavior also differs. The Radeon 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, a wide dynamic range that allows it to scale aggressively under load. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 2025 MHz, a narrower range with a higher floor. The AMD part's higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower shader count, though the NVIDIA part's raw throughput remains far higher on paper. The Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 3.072 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The RTX 500 delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS of FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part offers roughly 2.7 times the FP32 throughput, a substantial gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation. The head-to-head results array is empty, and neither wins nor losses are recorded for either side. This absence of comparative data means the analysis must rely on the individual benchmark scores available for the Radeon 860M and the architectural specifications of the RTX 500.

The Radeon 860M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and Vulkan score of 30,043 establish its performance baseline. Its average benchmark score of 26,401 places it near several discrete-class rivals in the database. The nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 with an average score of 26,421, a delta of -0.1% relative to the Radeon 860M, meaning the MX550 is essentially tied. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 scores 26,331, a delta of 0.3% in favor of the Radeon 860M, indicating the AMD part edges out a much newer discrete GPU. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary scores 26,553, a delta of -0.6%, putting the Radeon 860M slightly behind that older high-end part. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 26,683, a delta of -1.1%, showing the Radeon 860M trails a professional workstation GPU by a small margin.

These rival comparisons demonstrate that the Radeon 860M, despite being an integrated part, lands in the middle of a cluster of discrete GPUs. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation, lacking any benchmark scores, cannot be placed in this ranking. Its percentile of 50 suggests it sits at the median of all GPUs, but without an average score, the percentile carries limited interpretive weight. The Radeon 860M's 72nd percentile, by contrast, is backed by actual measured results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26,401. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark results are recorded for it in the database.

Q: What is the shading unit count difference?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has 2,048 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 860M has 512 shading units. The NVIDIA part has four times the shading units.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores and tensor cores?

A: Both GPUs have ray tracing cores: the AMD Radeon 860M has 8, and the NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has 16. Only the NVIDIA part has tensor cores, with 64 of them. The AMD part has no tensor cores.

Q: What are the TDP values for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 35 W, more than double the AMD part.

Q: How does the Radeon 860M compare to the GeForce MX550?

A: The Radeon 860M has an average score of 26,401, while the GeForce MX550 has an average score of 26,421. The delta is -0.1%, meaning the MX550 is marginally ahead, effectively a statistical tie.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in scenarios where verified performance and power efficiency are the priorities. Its 15 W TDP allows integration into thin-and-light portable devices without dedicated cooling solutions. Its system-shared memory model removes the need for separate VRAM allocation, simplifying system design. The measured Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,759 and Vulkan score of 30,043 confirm its capability across two major compute APIs. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, backed by an average score of 26,401, places it ahead of several discrete GPUs, including the GeForce MX550 by a negligible -0.1% delta and the GeForce RTX 5060 by a 0.3% delta. For users who need a proven baseline, the Radeon 860M delivers.

The NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation wins in scenarios where raw architectural headroom matters. Its 2,048 shading units, 64 tensor cores, and 16 ray tracing cores offer a compute profile that the Radeon 860M cannot match on paper. Its 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the Radeon 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed memory subsystem, avoiding the variability of system-shared memory. Its 64-bit bus and 16 Gbps effective memory speed indicate a design optimized for consistent bandwidth. However, the database records no benchmark scores for the RTX 500, so its theoretical advantages remain unverified in practice.

The use-case split is clear. The Radeon 860M is the choice for measured, low-power integrated graphics with a defined performance level. The RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation is the choice for applications that require tensor core support and a dedicated memory pool, assuming the lack of benchmark data is acceptable. The Radeon 860M's 4 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in density, while the RTX 500's 5 nm node and 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die indicate a larger, more complex chip. The Radeon 860M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the RTX 500's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW, showing both are part of active product lines.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ in the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon 860M | NVIDIA RTX 500 Mobile Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 600 MHz | 1485 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3000 MHz | 2025 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 128.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 512 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 64.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 129.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 35 W |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2024-02-25 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | null | Blackwell-MW |

| Percentile | 72 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 26,401 | 0 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 22,759 | no data |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 30,043 | no data |

Both GPUs share several characteristics: they are integrated parts (IGP slot width), use no power connectors, connect via PCIe 4.0 x8, support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. Their production status is Active for both. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.