AMD Radeon 8060S vs AMD Radeon 820M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon 8060S as a high-end integrated graphics solution that competes with discrete desktop-class GPUs, while the AMD Radeon 820M is a low-power entry-level IGP with a much smaller execution footprint. The 8060S sits at the 87th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 55757. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score are the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55698 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 at 56083 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54828 (1.7% behind the 8060S), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 at 54247 (2.8% behind). This clustering indicates that the 8060S delivers performance on par with those discrete cards in the database’s averaged metrics.

The 820M has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, no nearest rivals, and an average score of zero. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs, but without measured scores, direct quantitative comparison is impossible. The 8060S is the clear choice for any workload requiring substantial graphics throughput, while the 820M is suited only for systems where the 15 W TDP and minimal execution resources are the primary constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 8060S wins across every category where measurement data exists. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 2162 points. In Geekbench OpenCL, it records 84626 points, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 80483 points. These three benchmarks cover rasterization (Steel Nomad) and general compute via OpenCL and Vulkan APIs, and the 8060S produces strong results in all of them.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Therefore, based strictly on available data, it cannot be said to win any measured workload. The only area where the 820M holds an advantage is power consumption, with a 15 W TDP compared to the 8060S’s 55 W TDP. That is a hardware specification, not a benchmark result, but it does indicate the 820M is intended for thermally constrained, low-power portable devices.

For use-case segmentation, the data indicates the 8060S is appropriate for gaming at competitive performance levels, given its Steel Nomad score and aggregate proximity to discrete GPUs like the RTX 4080 and RX 6750 GRE. The 820M, with its 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, is configured for basic display output and light compute tasks, but no benchmark data supports claims of specific capability.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.5 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC’s 4 nm process. The similarity ends there. The Radeon 8060S uses the Strix Halo chip, while the Radeon 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip. The 8060S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation, whereas the 820M is in the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation.

The 8060S has a die size of 308 mm², while the 820M’s die size is unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both. The 8060S integrates 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The 820M integrates 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. That is a 20:1 ratio in shading units, a 20:1 ratio in TMUs, a 16:1 ratio in ROPs, and a 20:1 ratio in ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The 8060S has a base clock of 1295 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The 8060S therefore starts at a higher floor and boosts 100 MHz higher. Pixel throughput reflects the ROP and clock combination: the 8060S delivers 185.6 GPixel/s, the 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s. Texture throughput shows the same gap: 464.0 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput is a major separator. The 8060S produces 14.85 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance in a 1:1 ratio. The 820M produces 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and FP16, also 1:1. The 8060S is roughly 20.7 times higher in raw FLOPs, matching the shading unit ratio.

Memory is system shared for both, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The 8060S uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 8060S has no tensor cores listed, and neither does the 820M. The 8060S’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the 820M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP. The 8060S was released on 2025-01-05, and the 820M was released on 2025-02-28. Both are listed as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores?

A: The Radeon 8060S has all recorded benchmark scores: 2162 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 84626 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 80483 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon 820M has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

Q: How does the Radeon 8060S compare to discrete GPUs in the database?

A: The 8060S has an average benchmark score of 55757. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 (56083), 1.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828), and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54247).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Radeon 8060S has a TDP of 55 W, while the Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The 820M consumes less power by specification.

Q: Are the architectures the same?

A: Both use RDNA 3.5 architecture and are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process. They differ in chip design: the 8060S uses Strix Halo, and the 820M uses Krackan Point 2.

Q: Do both support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the compute throughput of each?

A: The 8060S delivers 14.85 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Radeon 8060S and the Radeon 820M. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both GPUs are zero. All comparative analysis must rely on the individual benchmark results for the 8060S and the architectural specifications for the 820M.

The 8060S’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2162 is the only rasterization benchmark available. This test measures DX12 performance in a modern workload, and a score above 2000 places the 8060S in the upper tier of the database, consistent with its 87th percentile ranking.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 8060S scores 84626. This compute benchmark exercises general-purpose GPU workloads through the OpenCL API. The score reflects the 14.85 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and the 464.0 GTexel/s texture rate.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 8060S scores 80483. This is slightly lower than the OpenCL score, indicating a minor API-specific performance difference, but still a high absolute result. The Vulkan score aligns with the GPU’s Vulkan 1.4 support.

The 820M has no scores to place against these results. Its architectural limits are quantifiable: 716.8 GFLOPS FP32, 11.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 22.40 GTexel/s texture rate. The 8060S is 20.7 times higher in FP32 throughput, 16.6 times higher in pixel rate, and 20.7 times higher in texture rate.

The nearest rival comparisons for the 8060S provide context for its aggregate standing. The delta percentages are all within 2.8 points of the 8060S’s average score. The RTX 5080 leads by 0.6%, the RX 6750 GRE trails by 0.1%, the Pro W5700X trails by 1.7%, and the RTX 4080 trails by 2.8%. This grouping indicates that the 8060S, despite being an integrated GPU with a 55 W TDP, performs within a narrow band of these discrete cards in the database’s overall scoring.

The 820M’s percentile rank of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs, but with no measured scores, this rank likely reflects its specification profile rather than observed performance. The absence of nearest rivals for the 820M further isolates it from comparative analysis.

Given the data, the 8060S is the only GPU of the two that can be benchmarked, and its results confirm it as a high-performance option. The 820M remains a specification-defined entry point with no measured data to support performance claims.