AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon 880M Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon 880M are both integrated graphics processors built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm TSMC process node, and belong to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Both parts share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, along with identical PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interfaces and IGP slot configurations.

The fundamental architectural difference lies in the silicon behind each IGP. The Radeon 820M is based on the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the Radeon 880M uses the Strix Point chip. This distinction drives a substantial disparity in execution resources. The 820M implements 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and 2 ray tracing cores. The 880M scales this configuration to 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. This represents a 6x increase in shading units, 6x in TMUs, 4x in ROPs, and 6x in ray tracing cores.

The transistor counts highlight the scale difference. The 880M's Strix Point chip contains 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, with a density of 145.9M transistors per mm². The 820M's Krackan Point 2 chip lists transistor count and die size as unknown in the database, indicating that detailed die information has not been recorded. The absence of this data for the smaller part makes direct die-level comparison impossible, but the functional unit counts provide a clear picture of the resource gap.

Both IGPs share the same base clock of 400 MHz. The boost clocks differ slightly: the 820M reaches 2800 MHz, while the 880M boosts to 2900 MHz, a 100 MHz advantage for the larger part. The memory subsystem for both is entirely system-dependent, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as System Shared or System Dependent. Neither part has dedicated VRAM.

The pixel and texture throughput figures reflect the ROP and TMU scaling. The 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. The 880M delivers 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s, which is 4.1x higher pixel throughput and 6.2x higher texture throughput. FP32 and FP16 compute both scale identically within each part: the 820M provides 716.8 GFLOPS for both precisions, while the 880M provides 4.454 TFLOPS for both, a 6.2x advantage.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show two primary areas of difference: compute resources and clock behavior.

Shading units: 128 on the 820M versus 768 on the 880M. TMUs: 8 versus 48. ROPs: 4 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: 2 versus 12. These are the core execution differences that determine all downstream performance metrics.

Clock speeds: the base clock is identical at 400 MHz for both parts. The boost clock differs: 2800 MHz for the 820M versus 2900 MHz for the 880M. The 880M's higher boost clock, combined with its larger resource pool, compounds the performance gap.

Theoretical throughput numbers quantify the gap: the 820M produces 11.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 22.40 GTexel/s texture rate, while the 880M produces 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS, and FP16 matches FP32 at 1:1 ratio on both parts.

Both parts list the same TDP of 15 W, the same PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, the same IGP slot width, no power connectors, and the same display outputs (Portable Device Dependent). Both are Active in production status and share the same predecessor, Navi II IGP. Neither has a successor listed.

Release dates differ: the 820M launched on February 28, 2025, while the 880M launched on July 14, 2024. The 880M is the earlier part by roughly eight months. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 880M wins decisively across every category of measured performance. Its resource advantage is so large that the 820M does not win any recorded benchmark category. The database shows zero wins for the 820M and zero wins for the 880M in head-to-head benchmarks, but the 880M's standalone benchmark scores and its resource configuration make the outcome clear.

The 880M is suited for any workload that stresses the GPU: DirectX 12 gaming, compute workloads, and general 3D rendering. Its Passmark G3D score of 7615 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 40006 indicate strong integrated graphics capability for a mobile platform. The 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware support for ray-traced effects in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, and the 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 throughput handles compute tasks with reasonable headroom.

The 820M, with 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores, is positioned for lighter duties. Its 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 compute and 11.20 GPixel/s pixel rate suit basic 2D desktop workloads, light 3D applications, and older or less demanding games. The 4 ROPs limit fill-rate-bound scenarios, and the 8 TMUs restrict texture-heavy rendering. For productivity tasks that do not stress the GPU, the 820M suffices, but it is not designed for modern AAA gaming at meaningful settings.

The 880M's percentile ranking of 43rd versus all GPUs indicates it sits slightly below the median of the entire GPU database, which includes discrete parts. The 820M has a percentile ranking of 50th, but this ranking is based on an average benchmark score of 0, meaning the percentile is not derived from actual measured performance. The database records no benchmark scores for the 820M. This discrepancy requires careful interpretation: the 820M's percentile and average score fields are populated with defaults, not measured data.

FAQ

Q: What is the biggest architectural difference between the Radeon 820M and Radeon 880M?

A: The shading unit count. The 820M has 128 shading units, while the 880M has 768, a 6x difference. This scaling applies equally to TMUs (8 versus 48) and ray tracing cores (2 versus 12), and to a lesser degree to ROPs (4 versus 16, a 4x difference).

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip?

A: No. The 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the 880M uses the Strix Point chip. Both are built on RDNA 3.5 architecture at a 4 nm TSMC process node.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: Both have a base clock of 400 MHz. The 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, while the 880M boosts to 2900 MHz, giving the 880M a 100 MHz higher boost clock.

Q: What is the compute performance difference?

A: The 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 and FP16, while the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16. This is a 6.2x advantage for the 880M in raw compute throughput.

Q: Does the 880M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 12 ray tracing cores. The 820M also supports ray tracing with 2 ray tracing cores, but with far less hardware dedicated to it.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the 820M in the database?

A: No. The database records no benchmark scores for the 820M. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0 and its percentile as 50, but these appear to be default values rather than derived from measurements. The 880M has ten recorded benchmark scores across DirectX, OpenCL, Vulkan, and Passmark tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Radeon 820M and Radeon 880M. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and both wins counters are zero. However, the 880M has a full set of ten individual benchmark scores, while the 820M has none. This absence of 820M data means a direct numerical comparison cannot be constructed from recorded measurements.

The 880M's individual scores provide a baseline for understanding its position. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 40006. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 31285. These are strong numbers for an integrated GPU, indicating capable compute performance for a 15 W IGP. The Passmark suite breaks down as follows: Passmark G3D scores 7615, Passmark G2D scores 969, Passmark GPU Compute scores 3719, Passmark DirectX 11 scores 73, Passmark DirectX 9 scores 97, Passmark DirectX 10 scores 31, and Passmark DirectX 12 scores 32. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test scores 535.

The 880M's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its average benchmark score of 8436. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average score of 8427, a delta of 0.1 percent, meaning the 880M is essentially tied with that older discrete GPU. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 scores 8458, a delta of -0.3 percent, placing the 880M slightly below it. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8462, also -0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8325, a delta of 1.3 percent, meaning the 880M is 1.3 percent ahead of that part.

These deltas are all within a narrow band around zero, indicating that the 880M performs at a level comparable to modest older discrete GPUs. The GTX 675MX and R9 M375X are previous-generation mobile discrete parts, and the 880M matches or slightly exceeds them. The MX330 and HD 8870M are marginally ahead, but the differences are within a fraction of a percent.

The 820M's lack of benchmark data prevents any direct numerical comparison in this section. The database shows no measured performance for the 820M. Its theoretical specifications indicate a much lower ceiling than the 880M: 6.2x fewer shading units, 6.2x lower texture rate, and 4.1x lower pixel rate. The 100 MHz boost clock deficit compounds this. Based on the recorded specifications, the 880M would be expected to outperform the 820M by a wide margin in every GPU-bound workload, but the database does not contain the scores to state that margin precisely.

The percentile rankings require careful handling. The 880M sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, based on an average score of 8436. The 820M sits at the 50th percentile, but with an average score of 0, this percentile cannot be considered a measured result. The 880M's percentile places it just below the median of all recorded GPUs, which is consistent with its performance being comparable to older discrete mobile parts. The 820M's percentile should be disregarded as a default value until benchmark data is recorded for that part.