AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760. In the two shared benchmark tests, the RX 6500M wins both outright, and the margins are substantial. The most striking result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6500M scores 43837 against the GTX 760's 12551. That is a 249.3% advantage, meaning the AMD part delivers nearly three and a half times the compute throughput in this API. OpenCL tells a similar story: the RX 6500M posts 38586 versus 11299, a 241.5% lead. Neither result is close enough to call competitive; the GTX 760 is left trailing by more than double in both metrics.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the RX 6500M lands at 10362, while the GTX 760 sits at 9458. That puts the AMD card roughly 9.6% ahead on average, a figure that seems modest compared to the head-to-head deltas. The explanation lies in the different benchmark sets each card was tested with. The GTX 760 has results for Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, while the RX 6500M has results for a much wider range of tests, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. The averages are not directly comparable, but the two tests where both cards appear show a consistent and massive AMD advantage.

Percentile placement reinforces the gap. The RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 760 sits at the 46th. That is only a two-point difference, which might suggest near parity. The head-to-head data contradicts that impression. The RX 6500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10400 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10481 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10582 (2.1% ahead). The GTX 760's nearest rivals cluster within a much narrower band: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK at 9474 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9313 (1.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9302 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9294 (1.8% behind). The RX 6500M sits among older workstation and mobile parts, while the GTX 760 competes with mid-range GPUs from its own era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins with a score of 38586, which is 241.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760's 11299.

Q: Is the RX 6500M faster in Vulkan as well?

A: Yes. The RX 6500M scores 43837 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 760 scores 12551. That is a 249.3% lead for the AMD card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in their average benchmark scores?

A: The RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10362, and the GTX 760 has an average of 9458. The RX 6500M is ahead by roughly 9.6%.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RX 6500M?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10400, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (10273, 0.9% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481, 1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10582, 2.1% ahead).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the GTX 760?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK (9474, 0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313, 1.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, 1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (9294, 1.8% behind).

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX 6500M ranks at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 760 ranks at the 46th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins every benchmark where the two cards can be directly compared. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 241.5% ahead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 249.3% ahead. These are not narrow victories; they are generation-skipping margins. The RX 6500M also holds the higher average benchmark score (10362 versus 9458) and the higher percentile ranking (48th versus 46th). For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the RX 6500M is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 does not win a single shared test. Its only unique data point is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 4524, but the RX 6500M has no Metal result in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. The GTX 760's strengths lie elsewhere: it has a 256-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s), which could matter in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios that the benchmark suite does not capture. It also has more texture mapping units (96 versus 64) and more shading units (1152 versus 1024). However, none of those hardware advantages translate into a win in the recorded tests.

The RX 6500M also has the benefit of far lower power consumption, with a 50 W TDP against the GTX 760's 170 W. For a laptop GPU versus a desktop GPU comparison, that efficiency gap is significant. The RX 6500M delivers roughly double the compute throughput while drawing less than a third of the power.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the memory configuration. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s. The GTX 760 has the higher bandwidth, but the RX 6500M has twice the capacity. Clock speeds also differ substantially: the RX 6500M runs at a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The RX 6500M also has a game clock of 2191 MHz, a figure the GTX 760 does not report.

The compute units tell a more nuanced story. The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 760 has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the RX 6500M produces far higher throughput: 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.378 TFLOPS, 153.6 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s, and 76.80 GPixel/s versus 24.77 GPixel/s. The RX 6500M also supports FP16 at 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1), while the GTX 760 has no FP16 data.

The power profiles are in different leagues. The RX 6500M draws 50 W and uses no power connectors, while the GTX 760 draws 170 W and requires two 6-pin connectors with a suggested 450 W PSU. The RX 6500M is an IGP form factor with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the GTX 760 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) with 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6500M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 760.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6500M is built on AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. It includes 16 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 760 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. It has no ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm. That explains much of the performance and efficiency gap. The RX 6500M fits more than 1.8 billion additional transistors onto a die less than half the size, and it does so while drawing 120 W less power. The architectural generation gap is equally wide. RDNA 2.0 is a modern GPU architecture with hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, while Kepler is a design from the GeForce 700 generation, lacking ray tracing and limited to DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level. The RX 6500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 tops out at Vulkan 1.2.175.

The GTX 760 belongs to the GeForce 700 generation, with the GeForce 600 as its predecessor and the GeForce 900 as its successor. The RX 6500M is part of the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation, with Polaris Mobile as its predecessor. The RX 6500M was released on 2022-01-03, while the GTX 760 was released on 2013-06-24. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the faster GPU in every directly comparable benchmark, with leads of 241.5% in OpenCL and 249.3% in Vulkan over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760. It also has the higher average benchmark score (10362 versus 9458) and the higher percentile ranking (48th versus 46th). If the choice is between these two for any modern compute workload, the RX 6500M is the only rational pick.

That said, the GTX 760 is not without its own merits. It offers higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s), a wider 256-bit bus, and more shading units and TMUs. In legacy DirectX workloads or games that favor raw fill rate and bandwidth, the GTX 760's specifications could keep it competitive in ways the current benchmark set does not measure. Its 2 GB frame buffer, however, is a hard limitation for modern titles, while the RX 6500M's 4 GB gives it headroom.

The RX 6500M's efficiency advantage is enormous. At 50 W versus 170 W, it consumes less than a third of the power while delivering more than double the compute performance. For a mobile or compact system, that makes the RX 6500M the obvious choice. The GTX 760, with its dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin connectors, and 450 W PSU requirement, belongs in a desktop build where power and space are not constraints.

Buyers should also consider the architectural differences. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, along with hardware ray tracing. The GTX 760 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, with no ray tracing. For future-proofing and access to modern graphics features, the RX 6500M is the only option. The GTX 760's launch MSRP was 249 USD, a figure that reflects its 2013 positioning, but the RX 6500M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

In summary: pick the RX 6500M for performance, efficiency, and modern features. Pick the GTX 760 only if you have a specific need for its higher memory bandwidth or its legacy display outputs. For everything else, the RX 6500M is the superior part, and the benchmark data supports that conclusion without qualification. The GTX 760's 46th percentile placement and 9458 average score place it in a lower tier, and the head-to-head results show a gap that no amount of driver tuning or overclocking is likely to close.