Radeon 860M vs GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB with Radeon 860M, including specs and performance data.
4060 Ti 16 GB outperforms 860M by a whopping 372% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 57 | 446 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 64.70 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 25.12 | 58.54 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) |
| GPU code name | AD106 | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 May 2023 (2 years ago) | March 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4352 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2535 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 22,900 million | 34,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 344.8 | 96.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 22.06 TFLOPS | 3.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 136 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 136 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 34 | 8 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L1 Cache | 4.3 MB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 MB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 240 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.9 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 172
+310%
| 42
−310%
|
| 1440p | 92
+411%
| 18
−411%
|
| 4K | 55
+450%
| 10−12
−450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.90 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.42 | no data |
| 4K | 9.07 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+336%
|
60−65
−336%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 176
+633%
|
24−27
−633%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 167
+695%
|
21−24
−695%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+214%
|
50−55
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+336%
|
60−65
−336%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 137
+471%
|
24−27
−471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 191
+282%
|
50
−282%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+257%
|
65−70
−257%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+367%
|
35−40
−367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 132
+529%
|
21−24
−529%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+187%
|
100−110
−187%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+214%
|
50−55
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270−280
+336%
|
60−65
−336%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+65.5%
|
160−170
−65.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115
+379%
|
24−27
−379%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 182
+304%
|
45
−304%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+257%
|
65−70
−257%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+367%
|
35−40
−367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 163
+288%
|
42
−288%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 107
+410%
|
21−24
−410%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130
+442%
|
24−27
−442%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 270
+487%
|
46
−487%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+187%
|
100−110
−187%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+214%
|
50−55
−214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 103
+329%
|
24−27
−329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 171
+307%
|
42
−307%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 80
+281%
|
21−24
−281%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+317%
|
40−45
−317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+371%
|
28
−371%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+402%
|
60−65
−402%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 240−250
+257%
|
65−70
−257%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+614%
|
21−24
−614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450
+358%
|
85−90
−358%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+461%
|
18−20
−461%
|
| Metro Exodus | 79
+464%
|
14−16
−464%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+400%
|
35−40
−400%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+174%
|
120−130
−174%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+332%
|
30−35
−332%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 127
+408%
|
24−27
−408%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+521%
|
27−30
−521%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 58
+346%
|
12−14
−346%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 96
+465%
|
16−18
−465%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+504%
|
24−27
−504%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+900%
|
7−8
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+339%
|
21−24
−339%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+500%
|
8−9
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+427%
|
14−16
−427%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+394%
|
60−65
−394%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+488%
|
16−18
−488%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+400%
|
14−16
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+442%
|
12−14
−442%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+525%
|
20−22
−525%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 31
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+773%
|
10−12
−773%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+618%
|
10−12
−618%
|
This is how RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB and Radeon 860M compete in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 310% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 411% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB surpassed Radeon 860M in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 51.46 | 10.90 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 15 Watt |
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has a 372.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 860M, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 1000% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 860M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 860M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
