AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon 820M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon 820M. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0 and occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The recorded data shows zero wins for either part in comparative testing. Consequently, any numerical comparison between the two must come from their respective specification sheets rather than measured performance deltas. The Instinct MI325X is a datacenter accelerator with a 1000 W TDP, while the Radeon 820M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor. Their intended operating environments are entirely different, which explains the absence of shared benchmark scenarios.

The Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. That places the MI325X roughly 114 times higher in raw single-precision throughput, a ratio that follows directly from the recorded figures (81.72 TFLOPS versus 0.7168 TFLOPS). Texture rate shows a similar gulf: the MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, versus 22.40 GTexel/s for the 820M, a factor of about 114 as well. Pixel rate, however, tells a different story. The MI325X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s because it has zero ROPs, while the Radeon 820M manages 11.20 GPixel/s. In any rasterization workload that depends on pixel output, the integrated part is the only one that functions.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also differ fundamentally. The MI325X carries 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. The MI325X memory clock runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate, whereas the 820M has no dedicated memory clock because it shares system RAM. The MI325X memory subsystem is designed for massive data movement, while the 820M relies on whatever memory bandwidth the host platform provides.

The only common ground in the specification sheets is the absence of measured benchmarks. Both parts show zero recorded benchmark scores, and both sit at the 50th percentile in the database's overall GPU ranking. That percentile value is identical despite the enormous specification differences, indicating that the percentile field does not reflect the performance gap. The database treats both as unranked by real-world tests, so the percentile should not be read as a performance equivalence.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Instinct MI325X targets compute-intensive datacenter workloads where FP32 throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth dominate. Its 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate, and 6.14 TB/s memory bandwidth place it in a class that requires a 1000 W power budget and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 820M, conversely, is an integrated processor for mobile systems, drawing just 15 W and using system shared memory. Its 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 and 22.40 GTexel/s are orders of magnitude lower, but it does have functional pixel output at 11.20 GPixel/s, which the MI325X lacks entirely.

The MI325X has zero ROPs and no display outputs, so it cannot drive a display or perform conventional rasterization. The 820M has 4 ROPs, 2 ray tracing cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any user needing graphics output, the 820M is the only viable option. For any workload requiring massive parallel compute and high-bandwidth memory, the MI325X is the only part with the necessary hardware.

The release dates also separate the two: the MI325X launched on 2024-10-09, while the 820M arrived on 2025-02-28. The MI325X succeeded the Radeon Instinct line, and the 820M succeeded the Navi II IGP. Neither part has a successor listed. The production status for the 820M is "Active," while the MI325X has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip based on RDNA 3.5, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are listed as "unknown," and no density is recorded.

The MI325X is part of the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the 820M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. Neither part lists tensor cores. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores recorded, while the 820M explicitly includes 2.

API support differs completely. The MI325X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its compute-only design. The 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a full graphics API implementation. The MI325X has no display outputs, while the 820M lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs.

Clock behavior also differs. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The 820M boost clock is higher, but its shading unit count is far lower. The MI325X FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), and the 820M likewise shows 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio).

Specification Differences

Power and physical form factor show the largest divergence. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W, a slot width of OAM Module, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, a slot width of IGP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU recorded. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Memory specifications are not comparable. The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, with bandwidth explicitly labeled "System Dependent." The MI325X memory clock is 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the 820M has no dedicated memory clock.

Pixel and texture rates differ as described: 0 MPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for pixels, and 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s for textures. The MI325X has no display outputs; the 820M has portable-device-dependent outputs. The MI325X has no production status recorded; the 820M is "Active." Release dates are 2024-10-09 for the MI325X and 2025-02-28 for the 820M. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: Can the AMD Instinct MI325X output video to a display?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, with 0 ROPs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU was released more recently?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M was released on 2025-02-28, while the AMD Instinct MI325X was released on 2024-10-09.