AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon 820M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M and AMD Radeon 820M represent two distinct tiers of integrated graphics within AMD's current mobile lineup. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, though the 820M carries architectural advantages that are not reflected in raw compute output.

The 780M is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark category. Its average benchmark score of 17,588 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the 820M sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores. The 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M, a difference of roughly 12.4 times in raw shader throughput.

In the specific recorded tests, the 780M posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683. It also achieves 480 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The 820M has no individual benchmark results in the database, meaning its performance profile must be inferred from its hardware configuration rather than measured outcomes.

The 780M's pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s dwarf the 820M's corresponding figures of 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. These metrics indicate that the 780M is substantially better suited for resolution-heavy rendering and texture-intensive workloads. The 820M, by contrast, appears designed for basic display output and light 2D acceleration rather than demanding 3D applications.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process node, but they diverge significantly in their underlying designs. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. The 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

The 780M's die measures 178 mm² and contains 25,390 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The 820M's die size and transistor count are recorded as unknown in the database, though both chips come from the same foundry and process node.

The compute configuration differences are stark. The 780M packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The 820M has only 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. That represents a 6x difference in shader count, a 6x difference in TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. The ray tracing core disparity is also 6x in favor of the 780M.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 820M runs at a lower 400 MHz base but reaches 2800 MHz boost, only 100 MHz behind the larger chip. This suggests the 820M can scale to competitive peak frequencies when thermal headroom allows, but its drastically smaller execution resources limit overall throughput.

Both GPUs share the same memory architecture: system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, connected via PCIe 4.0 x8. Neither has dedicated VRAM, so performance will scale with the host system's memory configuration. Both also share identical API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The 780M carries a 15 W TDP, as does the 820M. Both are integrated graphics processors with no power connectors and motherboard-dependent or portable-device-dependent display outputs respectively. The 780M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, matching the 820M's interface.

The 780M was released on January 30, 2024, while the 820M arrived on February 28, 2025, over a year later. Both list their predecessor as Navi II IGP, and the 780M's successor is recorded as Navi III IGP. The 820M has no recorded successor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the 780M is overwhelmingly more powerful than the 820M across all measurable dimensions. The 780M's average benchmark score of 17,588 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the 820M's 50th percentile ranking with zero recorded benchmarks reflects its lower position in the performance hierarchy.

The nearest rivals for the 780M provide useful context. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551, putting the 780M just 0.2% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17,639, meaning the 780M trails it by 0.3%. The AMD Radeon HD 7790 averages 17,666, a 0.4% gap against the 780M. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509, with the 780M ahead by 0.5%. These margins are remarkably tight, indicating the 780M sits in a well-populated performance band where small differences separate adjacent products.

The 820M's architectural advantages in RDNA 3.5 do not compensate for its reduced execution resources. A newer architecture with 6x fewer shading units and 8x fewer ROPs cannot overcome that deficit. The 820M's 50th percentile placement suggests it performs at the median level of all GPUs, a modest position compared to the 780M's 61st percentile.

For users who need integrated graphics capable of playable frame rates in modern 3D titles, the 780M is the clear choice from this dataset. Its 12 ray tracing cores, 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate provide a foundation for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and high-resolution rendering. The 820M, with only 2 ray tracing cores and 716.8 GFLOPS, serves more as a display controller for productivity workloads than a gaming GPU.

The choice between these two depends entirely on workload requirements. Systems needing the highest possible integrated graphics performance should select the 780M. Systems where basic graphical output and power efficiency take priority over 3D performance may find the 820M adequate, though the database contains no benchmark results to confirm its real-world capabilities.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the 780M than the 820M in raw compute?

A: The 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 820M produces 716.8 GFLOPS. This represents a 12.4x difference in raw shader throughput.

Q: What is the architectural difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Phoenix chip, while the 820M uses RDNA 3.5 on the Krackan Point 2 chip. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process.

Q: How do the ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The 780M has 12 ray tracing cores, while the 820M has only 2. This 6x difference directly impacts hardware-accelerated ray tracing performance.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 780M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2900 MHz. The 820M has a 400 MHz base clock and boosts to 2800 MHz, just 100 MHz below the 780M's peak.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same API support?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interfaces.

Q: Which GPU has a higher performance percentile ranking?

A: The 780M sits in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the 820M ranks in the 50th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data between these two GPUs is empty, meaning no direct comparative tests have been recorded in the database. However, the individual benchmark results and hardware specifications provide sufficient grounds for comparison.

The 780M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,602 represents a substantial compute performance level for an integrated GPU. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,683 indicates strong graphics API utilization, nearly doubling the OpenCL result. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, while modest in absolute terms, places the 780M within striking distance of discrete graphics cards from previous generations.

The 820M has no benchmark entries in the database, making direct numerical comparison impossible. Its hardware configuration, however, reveals the performance ceiling. With 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, the 820M's texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s are roughly 6.2x and 8.3x lower than the 780M's respective figures.

The 780M's nearest rival data provides additional context. Its average score of 17,588 sits between the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.2% behind the 780M) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.3% ahead). This clustering indicates that the 780M performs at a level comparable to a mid-range discrete GPU from several generations ago, an impressive result for an integrated solution.

The 780M's 61st percentile ranking versus the 820M's 50th percentile places the smaller GPU at the exact median of all recorded GPUs. This suggests the 820M performs no better than half the GPUs in the database, a moderate result consistent with its reduced execution resources.

Both GPUs share identical TDP ratings of 15 W, meaning the 780M achieves its vastly higher performance within the same power envelope. This efficiency advantage stems from its larger die with more execution units, allowing parallel work distribution across 768 shading units rather than 128.

The 780M's pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s enables smooth high-resolution rendering, while the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s would struggle with modern game resolutions. The texture rate difference of 139.2 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s similarly limits the 820M in texture-heavy scenes.

In the Vulkan API, the 780M's score of 33,683 shows particularly strong performance, more than 80% higher than its OpenCL result. This indicates efficient low-level API utilization, a characteristic of RDNA architectures. The 820M's RDNA 3.5 design may offer similar API efficiency, but its drastically smaller hardware resources cap its achievable performance.

The 780M's transistor count of 25,390 million on a 178 mm² die demonstrates the density achievable on TSMC's 4 nm node. The 820M's transistor count and die size remain unknown, but its reduced execution unit count suggests a substantially smaller die, possibly enabling lower manufacturing costs despite the newer architecture.

For users comparing these two integrated GPUs, the recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The 780M outperforms the 820M in every hardware metric and benchmark result available, while both consume the same 15 W of power. The 820M's newer RDNA 3.5 architecture and higher release date do not offset its fundamental compute deficit.