AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon 820M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 760M and the AMD Radeon 820M. The 760M carries a full set of ten benchmark scores, while the 820M has no recorded benchmark entries at all. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible. What can be compared is the architectural data and the 760M's placement against other GPUs in the database.

The 760M's average benchmark score is 6019, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 with an average score of 6001, a 0.3% difference, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000, also a 0.3% difference. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, a 0.4% gap, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 leads slightly at 6049, putting the 760M 0.5% behind. These margins are small, indicating the 760M sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Individual 760M benchmark results show a wide spread across APIs. The Geekbench Vulkan score reaches 30336, while the Geekbench OpenCL score is 20255. In Passmark tests, the G3D score is 5310, the G2D score is 890, and GPU compute lands at 2840. Legacy DirectX tests produce lower numbers: DirectX 9 scores 65, DirectX 11 scores 52, DirectX 12 scores 25, and DirectX 10 scores 19. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 400.

The 820M has zero recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of 0. Its percentile ranking of 50 is present in the database, but with no measured results behind it, that figure carries no comparative weight. The database lists no nearest rivals for the 820M. Any performance assessment of the 820M must therefore rely entirely on its specification sheet rather than measured outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs come from different points in AMD's RDNA lineage. The Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Radeon 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process, so the fabrication node is identical. The 760M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation, and the 820M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Both list Navi II IGP as their predecessor.

The transistor and die data differ sharply. The 760M carries 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, with no density figure recorded. This means the physical scale of the 820M cannot be quantified from the database.

Compute resources show a major gap. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 render output units, and 8 ray tracing cores. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. That is a 4:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs, and a 4:1 ratio in ROPs and ray tracing cores as well. The 760M's pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M. Texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M versus 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M, a difference of roughly 7.4 times. Both parts list FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the half-precision figures match their FP32 numbers exactly.

Clock behavior also differs. The 760M runs a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The 820M starts lower at 400 MHz but boosts higher to 2800 MHz. The higher boost on the smaller chip does not compensate for the massive gap in execution resources, as the benchmark-relevant throughput figures above indicate.

Both GPUs are listed with a 15 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs differ in description: the 760M is motherboard dependent, while the 820M is portable device dependent. Memory is system shared for both, with bandwidth described as system dependent. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The 760M wins on every quantifiable compute and graphics specification. Its shading unit count of 512 quadruples the 820M's 128. Its 32 TMUs quadruple the 820M's 8, and its 16 ROPs quadruple the 820M's 4. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 8 versus 2. The 760M's FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS is roughly 7.4 times the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. Pixel rate and texture rate show the same proportional advantage. For any workload that scales with raw shader throughput, texture filtering, or rasterization, the 760M is the clear choice.

The 820M's advantages are narrower. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz exceeds the 760M's 2599 MHz, which can help in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks where clock speed matters more than parallel width. Its RDNA 3.5 architecture is a newer revision than the 760M's RDNA 3.0, which may bring efficiency or feature improvements that are not captured in the raw specification fields. The 820M also has a later release date of 2025-02-28 versus the 760M's 2024-01-30. The 820M's lower base clock of 400 MHz suggests a wider dynamic range under power management, potentially allowing deeper idle states, though the database does not provide power draw measurements beyond the 15 W TDP shared by both.

In the absence of 820M benchmark scores, the 760M's measured results provide the only performance data. Its Passmark G3D score of 5310 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 30336 indicate it can handle modern API workloads at integrated graphics levels. The 820M, with a quarter of the shading units and a seventh of the FP32 throughput, would logically land far below those figures, but the database does not confirm this with measurements.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | AMD Radeon 760M | AMD Radeon 820M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Phoenix | Krackan Point 2 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Phoenix) | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | unknown |

| Die size | 178 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor density | 142.6M / mm² | null |

| Base clock | 800 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2599 MHz | 2800 MHz |

| Shading units | 512 | 128 |

| TMUs | 32 | 8 |

| ROPs | 16 | 4 |

| Ray tracing cores | 8 | 2 |

| Pixel rate | 41.58 GPixel/s | 11.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 83.17 GTexel/s | 22.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.323 TFLOPS | 716.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| Display outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release date | 2024-01-30 | 2025-02-28 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 35 | 50 |

| Average benchmark score | 6019 | 0 |

| Benchmark entries | 10 | 0 |

| Nearest rivals | 4 listed | none |

Fields that match include manufacturer (AMD), process node (4 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory configuration (system shared, system dependent bandwidth), TDP (15 W), slot width (IGP), power connectors (none), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), and all three API versions (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). Both are Active in production status, both list Navi II IGP as predecessor, and neither has a successor or launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128, a 4:1 ratio.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS, while the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. The 760M's FP32 throughput is roughly 7.4 times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process. They differ in architecture: the 760M uses RDNA 3.0, and the 820M uses RDNA 3.5.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, while the 760M boosts to 2599 MHz. The 760M has a higher base clock at 800 MHz versus 400 MHz.

Q: Are there any direct benchmark comparisons between the two?

A: No. The database has ten benchmark scores for the 760M and no benchmark entries for the 820M, so no direct head-to-head comparison is possible.

Q: What is the 760M's closest rival in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has an average score of 6001, a 0.3% difference from the 760M's 6019. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M matches that 0.3% gap at 6000, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 sits 0.5% ahead at 6049.