AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA RTX A1000 across the two shared benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52,078 against the AMD Radeon 860M's 22,759, a margin of 56.3% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is the largest gap between the two in any test, and it reflects the RTX A1000's substantially higher compute throughput in general-purpose workloads.

The Vulkan results narrow the gap somewhat but still favor the NVIDIA card. The RTX A1000 posts 49,574 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon 860M manages 30,043, a 39.4% deficit for the AMD IGP. The delta between the two tests is informative: the Radeon 860M closes roughly 17 points of the percentage gap when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, suggesting the AMD architecture handles the Vulkan API relatively better than it does OpenCL, but it remains well behind in absolute terms.

Across the head-to-head suite, the RTX A1000 wins both tests, giving NVIDIA a 2-0 sweep. The Radeon 860M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 26,401, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RTX A1000 averages 34,207, good for the 79th percentile. That 7-point percentile gap is modest compared to the raw score differences, indicating that the Radeon 860M sits in a competitive neighborhood for integrated graphics while the RTX A1000 occupies a higher tier among discrete workstation cards.

The Radeon 860M's nearest rivals in the database help contextualize its standing. It sits within 1.1% of the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (average score 26,683, delta -1.1%), within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553, delta -0.6%), and essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26,421, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331, delta 0.3%). For an integrated part, matching discrete GPUs from previous generations is notable, but the RTX A1000 operates in a different class.

The RTX A1000's nearest rivals confirm its position. It is within 0.4% of the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, delta -0.4%) and within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, delta 0.6%). The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, delta 0.2%) and AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, delta 0.2%) are essentially tied with it. These results place the RTX A1000 in the upper-midrange of the database's GPU population, while the Radeon 860M, though strong for an IGP, trails by roughly 30% in average score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins both recorded tests. It leads by 56.3% in Geekbench OpenCL (52,078 vs. 22,759) and by 39.4% in Geekbench Vulkan (49,574 vs. 30,043).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A1000 averages 34,207 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon 860M averages 26,401. That is a difference of roughly 29.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold?

A: The Radeon 860M sits in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RTX A1000 ranks higher, in the 79th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, compared to 512 on the Radeon 860M. The RTX A1000 also has 72 tensor cores and 18 RT cores, while the Radeon 860M has 8 RT cores and no tensor cores listed.

Q: How does memory configuration differ?

A: The RTX A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, built as part of the Krackan Point chip within the Navi III IGP generation. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm process from Samsung, built on the GA107 chip within the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation.

The process node difference is significant. The Radeon 860M's 4 nm TSMC process is two generations ahead of the RTX A1000's 8 nm Samsung node in terms of feature size, which helps explain how AMD fits 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs into a 15 W integrated design. The RTX A1000, by contrast, uses its larger 8 nm process to pack 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs into a 50 W discrete card. The RTX A1000's die is listed at 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Radeon 860M's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Compute feature sets differ substantially. The Radeon 860M has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed, while the RTX A1000 carries 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. The tensor cores give the RTX A1000 a hardware path for AI and deep learning workloads that the Radeon 860M simply does not have in its specification sheet. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is identical at the feature-set level.

Clock behavior also reflects the different design philosophies. The Radeon 860M has a 600 MHz base clock and a 3,000 MHz boost clock, an aggressive boost ratio for an integrated part. The RTX A1000 runs at 727 MHz base and 1,462 MHz boost, far more conservative clocks that reflect its discrete workstation positioning and higher power envelope.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show clear divergences across nearly every measurable field. The Radeon 860M is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the RTX A1000 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The RTX A1000 lists 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die with a density of 43.5M per mm²; the Radeon 860M's figures are unknown.

Memory is a major differentiator. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 860M uses system-shared memory with a system-shared type, system-shared bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The RTX A1000's memory clock is listed at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the Radeon 860M's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

Compute unit counts favor the NVIDIA card. The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The RTX A1000's FP32 throughput is 6.737 TFLOPS and its FP16 throughput is also 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1). The Radeon 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), roughly 54% less compute than the NVIDIA card.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The RTX A1000 achieves 46.78 GPixel/s and 105.3 GTexel/s. The Radeon 860M posts 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. The Radeon 860M actually has a slightly higher pixel rate, an artifact of its high 3,000 MHz boost clock, but its texture rate trails the RTX A1000 by roughly 9.7%.

Physical and power specs differ as expected for an IGP versus a discrete card. The Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP slot width, uses no power connectors, and has a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and the same PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The RTX A1000 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the Radeon 860M has no physical dimensions listed since it is integrated. Display outputs differ: the RTX A1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon 860M's outputs are portable-device dependent. The Radeon 860M's release date is 2025-02-28, while the RTX A1000 shipped earlier on 2024-04-15.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 2,304 shading units, 72 tensor cores, and 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput make it the stronger choice for any workload that scales with shading unit count or benefits from tensor core acceleration. The Geekbench OpenCL result, where it leads by 56.3%, reflects this compute advantage. The 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a decisive edge in memory-bound tasks, since the Radeon 860M must share system memory with the CPU and its bandwidth is system dependent.

The Radeon 860M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the RTX A1000's 50 W, and as an IGP it requires no additional board space, no power connectors, and no dedicated cooling solution beyond what the host laptop already provides. For thin-and-light portable devices, this is a meaningful advantage. Its 3,000 MHz boost clock also indicates strong per-clock efficiency, and its higher pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s versus the RTX A1000's 46.78 GPixel/s suggests it can hold its own in certain fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The percentile data tells a nuanced story. The Radeon 860M ranks in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, which is unusually high for an integrated part; it sits within 1.1% of the RTX A4000 and essentially ties the RTX 5060 and MX550 in average score. The RTX A1000's 79th percentile places it in the same bracket as the TITAN V and RTX A2000 12 GB, a tier the Radeon 860M does not reach. For users constrained to integrated graphics, the Radeon 860M is competitive with older discrete cards. For users who need maximum compute throughput, dedicated memory, and tensor core support, the RTX A1000 is the better fit.

The Vulkan results offer a partial counterpoint. The Radeon 860M's 39.4% deficit in Vulkan is smaller than its 56.3% OpenCL gap, indicating the AMD IGP's architecture is relatively more competitive under Vulkan. Still, the RTX A1000 wins both tests outright. The data does not show any benchmark category where the Radeon 860M defeats the RTX A1000.

The workstation positioning of the RTX A1000 is reinforced by its feature set. Tensor cores, 18 RT cores, 8 GB of GDDR6, and a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a capable small-footprint workstation card. The Radeon 860M, with no tensor cores and only 8 RT cores, is better understood as a high-performance integrated solution for portable devices where discrete graphics are not an option. The benchmark gap, while large, is consistent with the fundamental difference between a 15 W IGP and a 50 W discrete workstation GPU.