AMD Radeon HD 8690M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8690M and NVIDIA RTX A400 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the RTX A400 delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 against the HD 8690M’s 6,137, a 73.1% advantage for the newer card. While both GPUs occupy similar low-level positions in the overall performance percentile (36th for AMD, 35th for NVIDIA), the raw compute disparity is enormous, reflecting fundamental differences in process technology, memory architecture, and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the AMD Radeon HD 8690M manages just 6,137. This represents a delta of -73.1% for the AMD part, meaning the RTX A400 is approximately 3.7 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The RTX A400’s score is not merely higher; it is in a completely different performance class, despite both cards being ranked in the low 30th percentile of all GPUs.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context for where these scores sit. The HD 8690M’s 6,137 is barely ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, +0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, +1%), but it trails the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6,210) by 1.2%. This places the HD 8690M squarely in the range of older integrated and entry-level discrete solutions. Conversely, the RTX A400’s 22,844 is a massive outlier compared to its immediate rivals: the GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% delta), NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, +0.5%), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, -0.6%) all score between roughly 6,000 and 6,100. The RTX A400 outstrips these by a factor of 3.7, yet its average benchmark score is dragged down to 6,078 by other, much weaker tests in its suite.

The RTX A400’s other benchmark results reveal a mixed profile. It scores 2,706 TFLOPS in FP32, a figure that aligns with its strong OpenCL showing. However, its Passmark scores are surprisingly low: 32 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, 27 in DirectX 12, and 87 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,983, with a GPU compute score of 2,557. These numbers suggest that while the card excels in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, its rasterization performance in legacy DirectX tests is comparatively modest, possibly due to driver optimizations or the nature of the test suite itself.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon HD 8690M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Sun chip, and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This newer node allows for 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving 43.5M transistors per mm²—a 3.5x density improvement.

Core configuration differences are stark. The HD 8690M has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The RTX A400 nearly triples the shading units to 768, increases TMUs to 24, and doubles ROPs to 16. Critically, the RTX A400 introduces dedicated hardware that the AMD part entirely lacks: 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. This makes the RTX A400 a modern accelerator capable of workloads the HD 8690M cannot even attempt.

Clock speeds and resulting throughput metrics further separate them. The HD 8690M runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a 975 MHz boost, producing a pixel rate of 7.800 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.50 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 624.0 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 operates at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost, delivering 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS, which is 4.3 times higher than the AMD card. The RTX A400 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.706 TFLOPS), a feature entirely absent from the HD 8690M’s specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8690M wins in exactly zero benchmark categories in the head-to-head data. The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins the sole shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by a 73.1% margin. However, the use-case split is more nuanced when considering the full picture.

The HD 8690M’s only real advantage lies in its production status: it is an end-of-life product from 2013, meaning it occupies a legacy role. For systems requiring a basic display output with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and support for DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, it remains a functional, if dated, option. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus provides 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for older titles or light 2D workloads.

The RTX A400 is the clear winner for any modern compute or professional task. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus delivers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth—triple the AMD card’s throughput. The presence of RT and tensor cores makes it suitable for ray-traced rendering and AI inference, workloads that are simply impossible on the GCN 1.0 part. Its API support is also more forward-looking: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. For users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the RTX A400 is the only viable choice.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Ampere
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 8 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs Samsung
• Transistors: 690 million vs 8,700 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² vs 200 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 43.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 925 MHz vs 1417 MHz
• Boost Clock: 975 MHz vs 1762 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bandwidth: 32.00 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 320 vs 768
• TMUs: 20 vs 24
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• RT Cores: None vs 6
• Tensor Cores: None vs 24
• Pixel Rate: 7.800 GPixel/s vs 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 19.50 GTexel/s vs 42.29 GTexel/s
• FP32: 624.0 GFLOPS vs 2.706 TFLOPS
• FP16: None vs 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: Not specified vs 50 W
• Slot Width: Not specified vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not specified vs None
• Suggested PSU: Not specified vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Not specified vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: Not specified vs 163 mm (6.4 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height
• Production Status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release Date: 2013-02-28 vs 2024-04-15
• Predecessor: London vs Quadro Turing
• Successor: Gem System vs Workstation Ada

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A400 than the AMD Radeon HD 8690M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 compared to the HD 8690M’s 6,137, a 73.1% lead for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 8690M support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The HD 8690M has no RT cores and no tensor cores; the NVIDIA RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The HD 8690M has 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 64-bit bus width.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A400 achieves 43.5M transistors per mm² on its 8 nm process, while the HD 8690M has 12.3M per mm² on 28 nm.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8690M is end-of-life, released in 2013. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is active, released in 2024.

Q: In the nearest rival comparisons, which card has the larger lead over its closest competitor?

A: The RTX A400’s closest rival is the GeForce MX230 with a 0% delta, meaning they are equal in average score. The HD 8690M leads the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by 0.3%. However, the RTX A400’s OpenCL score is 3.7x higher than any of its listed rivals, a discrepancy not reflected in its average score.