GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and AMD Radeon 860M occupy the same position in the aggregate performance distribution, yet they are fundamentally different products. The data places both at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of 26683 and 26401 respectively. This near-parity in overall standing, however, masks a decisive split in raw compute capability and architectural intent. The RTX A4000 is a discrete workstation card built on the Ampere architecture, while the Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics processor within AMD’s RDNA 3.5 lineup for mobile systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two common benchmark results in the data are Geekbench compute tests, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 dominates both by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4000 scores 105739 against the 860M’s 22759. That is a 364.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is slightly narrower but still overwhelming: the A4000 posts 127645 versus 30043, a 324.9% lead. These are not close contests; they represent roughly a fourfold difference in compute throughput in both APIs.

The aggregate scores tell a different story. The RTX A4000 averages 26683 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Radeon 860M averages 26401. The delta between them is just 1.1% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This discrepancy arises because the A4000’s scores include a broader set of legacy DirectX tests and Passmark workloads, where it scores modestly, for example, 126 in Passmark DirectX 10, 158 in DirectX 11, and 72 in DirectX 12. The 860M, by contrast, has only two benchmark entries, both compute-oriented, so its aggregate is skewed toward its stronger compute performance relative to older rasterization tests.

In practical terms, the data shows the RTX A4000 is the clear winner in raw compute workloads, while the aggregate parity suggests the 860M is more competitive in overall system-level performance when accounting for its integrated nature. The nearest rivals for the A4000 include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.5% higher average score), NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (1% lower), and the Radeon 860M itself (1.1% lower). The 860M’s nearest rivals are the MX550 (0.1% higher), RTX 5060 (0.3% lower), and RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.6% lower). These deltaPct values are all within a narrow band, reinforcing that the aggregate performance tier is crowded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is stark. The RTX A4000 uses NVIDIA’s GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. The Radeon 860M is built on AMD’s Krackan Point chip using a 4 nm TSMC process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The process node difference alone, 8 nm versus 4 nm, explains part of the efficiency gap, but the designs diverge further.

The A4000 is a full discrete GPU with 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also carries 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, giving it dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The shading unit count is 12 times higher on the NVIDIA card, and the RT core count is 6 times higher. These are not comparable designs; the A4000 is built for sustained workstation throughput, while the 860M is an integrated solution optimized for power efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The A4000 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost of 1560 MHz. The 860M has a lower base of 600 MHz but a much higher boost of 3000 MHz. This suggests the 860M can ramp aggressively under burst loads, but its smaller execution width means peak throughput is limited. The A4000’s higher base clock and wider architecture provide consistent performance under sustained load.

Memory is another major divider. The A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 860M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The A4000’s dedicated memory pool and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are critical for compute and rendering workloads, whereas the 860M must share system memory bandwidth with the CPU. The A4000 also has a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin power connector, while the 860M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP. The A4000’s TDP is 140 W.

The form factors reinforce the intended use cases. The A4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 860M is an integrated processor with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no physical dimensions listed. The A4000 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear delineation: the RTX A4000 is for compute-heavy workstation tasks, while the Radeon 860M is for power-constrained mobile systems. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4000 leads by 364.6%; in Vulkan, by 324.9%. No benchmark in the pack shows the 860M winning. The A4000’s FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M, a 6.24x difference. Pixel rate is 149.8 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. These are not minor gaps; they are categorical differences in execution capacity.

However, the aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical, 26683 versus 26401, a 1.1% delta. This means that in mixed workloads, the 860M is not far behind the A4000, likely because its high boost clock and modern RDNA 3.5 architecture compensate for fewer execution units in certain tasks. The 860M’s 3000 MHz boost is nearly double the A4000’s 1560 MHz boost, which helps close the gap in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded scenarios.

The production status tells the rest of the story. The A4000 is end-of-life, released in April 2021, with a successor in Workstation Ada. The 860M is active, released in February 2025, and has no successor listed. The A4000 is a mature product at the end of its cycle, while the 860M is a current-generation part. For a user needing maximum compute performance in a discrete card, the A4000 is the choice. For a thin-and-light laptop requiring integrated graphics, the 860M is the only option in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 scores 105739 versus the AMD Radeon 860M’s 22759, a 364.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the aggregate benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A4000 averages 26683, while the Radeon 860M averages 26401. The A4000 leads by 1.1%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A4000 has 448.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon 860M uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX A4000 has 6144 shading units, compared to the Radeon 860M’s 512 shading units.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The RTX A4000 has a 140 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon 860M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Are both GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, despite the large difference in raw compute benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 wins decisively in compute-bound scenarios. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 127645 is 324.9% higher than the 860M’s 30043. The A4000 also has dedicated RT cores (48 versus 8) and tensor cores (192 versus none), making it suitable for ray tracing and AI workloads that the 860M cannot accelerate as effectively. The A4000’s 16 GB of GDDR6 with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage for large datasets, whereas the 860M’s system shared memory is dependent on the rest of the platform.

The Radeon 860M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the A4000’s 140 W, and it requires no power connectors or external PSU. The 860M’s 4 nm process node and 3000 MHz boost clock indicate a modern, power-savvy design. For mobile devices where battery life and thermal limits are paramount, the 860M is the only viable option, the A4000’s 241 mm length and single-slot form factor are not compatible with portable systems.

In mixed or legacy workloads, the aggregate scores suggest the 860M is competitive. The A4000’s Passmark DirectX scores are low (126 in DX10, 158 in DX11, 72 in DX12), which drags its average down. The 860M, with only two compute benchmarks, avoids this penalty. Thus, for users running a narrow set of modern compute tasks, the 860M offers near-parity with the A4000 at a fraction of the power draw. For users running diverse workstation applications, the A4000’s higher raw throughput and dedicated memory are decisive. The data does not show a single winner across all scenarios; it shows two tools for different jobs.