AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct head-to-head measurements between the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA RTX A400. The results split evenly, with each part claiming one victory, but the margins are not symmetrical.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the AMD Radeon 860M's 22,759. The delta is a mere 0.4 percent in NVIDIA's favor, a margin so thin that it sits within typical run-to-run variation. Both parts effectively deliver the same raw compute throughput under OpenCL, which is notable given their very different architectures and power envelopes. The RTX A400 draws 50 W while the Radeon 860M is rated at 15 W, yet the performance gap in this test remains negligible.

The Vulkan result tells a completely different story. The AMD Radeon 860M posts 30,043, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 manages 22,237. That is a 35.1 percent advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin that indicates the Radeon 860M has a significant edge in this particular graphics API. Vulkan is often used in modern game engines and compute workloads, and the data suggests the Radeon 860M's RDNA 3.5 architecture handles the low-level API more efficiently than NVIDIA's Ampere implementation in this comparison.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon 860M holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26,401. Its nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421, a delta of only 0.1 percent, followed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26,331 (0.3 percent behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26,553 (0.6 percent ahead). The NVIDIA RTX A4000 sits at 26,683, which is 1.1 percent above the Radeon 860M's average.

The NVIDIA RTX A400, by contrast, holds only a 35th percentile ranking, with an average benchmark score of 6,078. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0 percent delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5 percent behind) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (0.6 percent ahead). The AMD Radeon 760M sits at 6,019, which is 1 percent behind the RTX A400's average.

This discrepancy in average scores is striking. The Radeon 860M's average is more than four times higher than the RTX A400's average, yet the head-to-head OpenCL result shows near parity. The explanation lies in the benchmark composition. The RTX A400's average includes several Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute) where its scores are modest, dragging down its overall figure. The Radeon 860M only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results in the database, which are both strong. This uneven test distribution makes the average scores not directly comparable, but the head-to-head tests remain valid for direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M wins decisively, scoring 30,043 versus the NVIDIA RTX A400's 22,237, a 35.1 percent advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins by a narrow margin, scoring 22,844 versus the AMD Radeon 860M's 22,759, a delta of only 0.4 percent.

Q: How do their overall database rankings compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M sits at the 72nd percentile among all GPUs with an average score of 26,401, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile with an average score of 6,078.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU by average score?

A: The Radeon 860M's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 at 26,421 (0.1 percent difference). The RTX A400's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0 percent difference).

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 860M has 512 shading units.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 860M and NVIDIA RTX A400 serve fundamentally different purposes despite their close OpenCL result. For workloads that leverage Vulkan, the Radeon 860M is clearly the stronger choice, with a 35.1 percent performance lead. This advantage likely stems from its RDNA 3.5 architecture, which is designed for modern graphics APIs and gaming-oriented workloads. The Radeon 860M also carries a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for portable devices, as indicated by its display output being "Portable Device Dependent."

The NVIDIA RTX A400, on the other hand, is a dedicated workstation card with a 50 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, and four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its OpenCL score matches the Radeon 860M almost exactly, which suggests it can handle compute tasks at a similar level in that API. However, its Vulkan performance trails significantly, and its overall database percentile (35th) is far below the Radeon 860M's (72nd). The RTX A400 also has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

For users prioritizing Vulkan-based rendering or gaming performance, the Radeon 860M is the data-backed choice. For users requiring a dedicated workstation GPU with fixed memory, multiple display outputs, and a single-slot design, the RTX A400 offers those features, though its benchmark profile is weaker overall.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses an 8 nm node from Samsung. The Radeon 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz, while the RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The Radeon 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon 860M features 8 ray tracing cores, while the RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores (the Radeon 860M has no tensor core listing). Pixel rates are 48.00 GPixel/s for the Radeon 860M versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400. Texture rates are 96.00 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.072 TFLOPS for the Radeon 860M versus 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400, with both offering 1:1 FP16.

The Radeon 860M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width and no power connectors, while the RTX A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX A400 has dimensions of 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The Radeon 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M is built on the Krackan Point chip using RDNA 3.5 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile). The NVIDIA RTX A400 is built on the GA107 chip using Ampere architecture, belonging to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. The Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the RTX A400 uses an 8 nm Samsung process. The RTX A400 has known transistor counts of 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die with a density of 43.5M per mm²; the Radeon 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

The Radeon 860M's predecessor is the Navi II IGP, and it was released on February 28, 2025. The RTX A400's predecessor is the Quadro Turing, with a successor listed as Workstation Ada, and it was released on April 15, 2024. The Radeon 860M's shading unit count is 512, but the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, which is 50 percent more. However, the Radeon 860M has more TMUs (32 versus 24) and more RT cores (8 versus 6). The RTX A400 uniquely has 24 tensor cores, which the Radeon 860M lacks entirely. The Radeon 860M's clock speeds are far more aggressive at boost (3000 MHz versus 1762 MHz), which helps explain its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput despite fewer shading units.

The Radeon 860M's power draw is 15 W, one-third of the RTX A400's 50 W. This makes the Radeon 860M an integrated solution, while the RTX A400 is a discrete single-slot card. The RTX A400's memory is dedicated GDDR6 with a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Radeon 860M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth that varies by system configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in Vulkan performance by 35.1 percent, which is its standout victory in the head-to-head data. It also holds a much higher overall database percentile (72 versus 35) and a far higher average benchmark score (26,401 versus 6,078). Its FP32 throughput is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate (48.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (96.00 GTexel/s) both exceed the RTX A400's figures (28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s). The Radeon 860M also has a lower TDP at 15 W versus 50 W, making it more power-efficient on paper. Its 8 RT cores versus 6 RT cores gives it an advantage in ray tracing hardware count.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in OpenCL by a negligible 0.4 percent, which is its only head-to-head victory. It has 768 shading units versus 512, giving it more parallel compute lanes, and it has 24 tensor cores that the Radeon 860M does not list. The RTX A400 also has dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, which can be advantageous in workloads that benefit from dedicated memory rather than system shared memory. Its single-slot form factor and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-display workstation setups, while the Radeon 860M's display outputs are portable device dependent. The RTX A400's Passmark scores show it handles DirectX 9 (87), DirectX 10 (32), DirectX 11 (37), DirectX 12 (27), G2D (899), G3D (5983), and compute (2557) workloads, providing a broader test profile in the database.

In summary, the Radeon 860M wins on raw throughput, Vulkan performance, power efficiency, and overall ranking. The RTX A400 wins on shading unit count, tensor cores, dedicated memory, and workstation-oriented features like display outputs and single-slot design. The OpenCL parity suggests that for compute tasks using that API, either part would perform similarly, but the Vulkan gap is decisive for graphics-heavy workloads.