AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has an average benchmark score of 26401, placing it in the 72nd percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 860M compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX550?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 has an average score of 26421, which is 0.1% higher than the Radeon 860M. The two are effectively tied in overall performance.

Q: What are the key specifications of the NVIDIA Rubin GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip on a 3 nm process, features 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, has 28672 shading units, 896 tensor cores, 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, and a boost clock of 2267 MHz.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Rubin GPU have any benchmark scores recorded?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: What APIs does the AMD Radeon 860M support?

A: The Radeon 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no API support listed (N/A for all).

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W. The Rubin's suggested PSU is 2700 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a stark contrast between a mobile integrated graphics processor and a server-class accelerator. The AMD Radeon 860M is a complete, measurable product in the database, with an average benchmark score of 26401 and a 72nd percentile ranking. It is an active, shipping IGP with DirectX 12 Ultimate support, designed for portable devices.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. It is a server module with no display outputs, no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and a power envelope of 2300 W. Its purpose is not consumer graphics but high-throughput compute, evidenced by its 896 tensor cores and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance.

For anyone evaluating a graphics product for gaming or general desktop use, the Radeon 860M is the only one of the two with relevant data. For compute workloads, the Rubin GPU's architecture, 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth, and massive shader count indicate a different class of device entirely, but its lack of benchmark data prevents direct performance conclusions. The verdict from the database is unambiguous: the Radeon 860M is a validated IGP, while the Rubin GPU is a data-center accelerator awaiting measurement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 860M and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The head-to-head records are empty, and neither wins nor losses are recorded for either side.

The Radeon 860M does have two individual benchmark scores: 22759 in Geekbench OpenCL and 30043 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average of 26401 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 (26421), 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26331), 0.6% below the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26553), and 1.1% below the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26683). These nearest rivals show that the 860M operates in the same performance band as discrete mobile and previous-generation desktop GPUs.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no benchmark entries, no nearest rivals, and a recorded average score of zero. Consequently, there are no numerical comparisons to make between the two items. The only measurable performance data in this comparison belongs to the Radeon 860M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon 860M uses a 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses 3 nm. The Rubin's die is 1456 mm² with 336,000 million transistors and a density of 230.8M / mm²; the 860M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Clock speeds: the 860M has a 600 MHz base and 3000 MHz boost, while the Rubin has a 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. Memory: the 860M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth; the Rubin has 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: the 860M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The Rubin has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores (no RT core count listed). Pixel and texture rates: 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s for the 860M versus 54.41 GPixel/s and 2,031.2 GTexel/s for the Rubin.

FP32 performance: 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M versus 130.0 TFLOPS for the Rubin. FP16: 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) for the 860M versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Rubin. TDP: 15 W versus 2300 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Form factor: IGP versus SXM Module. Display outputs: portable-device-dependent versus none.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 860M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its chip is Krackan Point. It is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors and a slot width classified as IGP. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for consumer graphics and gaming workloads. Its predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is built on the Rubin architecture and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. Its chip is GR100. It is a server module with a 2300 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 2700 W. It has no display outputs and no consumer API support, reflecting a compute-first design. Its 896 tensor cores and 2:1 FP16 ratio (260.0 TFLOPS) indicate a focus on AI and high-performance compute. Its predecessor is Server Blackwell.

The transistor density figures further separate the designs: the Rubin achieves 230.8M / mm² on its 1456 mm² die, while the 860M's density is not recorded. The Rubin's memory subsystem (288 GB HBM4, 22.1 TB/s) is orders of magnitude larger than the 860M's system-shared memory, reinforcing that these are different product categories. The Radeon 860M is a 4 nm integrated solution for portable devices; the Rubin is a 3 nm server accelerator with no display path.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in any scenario requiring consumer graphics capability. It is the only one of the two with benchmark scores, API support, and display outputs. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility make it viable for gaming on portable devices. With a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, it fits into integrated designs. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs and average score of 26401, within 0.1% of the GeForce MX550, show it competes with entry-level discrete graphics.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins in raw compute specifications. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 dwarf the 860M's 3.072 TFLOPS. Its 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth and 288 GB HBM4 capacity are server-class. Its 896 tensor cores target AI workloads. Its 2,031.2 GTexel/s texture rate is over 21 times the 860M's 96.00 GTexel/s. However, none of these advantages are validated by benchmark scores, as the database records no tests for the Rubin.

For a user of consumer graphics, the 860M is the clear choice based on available data. For a data-center operator, the Rubin's specifications position it for compute, but its lack of measured results means any claim of superiority remains unverified in the database. The head-to-head benchmark section is empty, so no win tally exists. Each product wins in its own domain: the 860M in measurable, supported consumer graphics; the Rubin in sheer specification scale for server compute.