AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon PRO W7400 occupy completely different segments of the GPU market, and the data confirms they are not direct competitors. The Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the Krackan Point 2 chip, designed for portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. The Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete, single-slot professional workstation card built on the Navi 33 chip. The 820M targets basic everyday graphics and light media work in thin-and-light laptops, while the PRO W7400 is engineered for professional content creation, CAD, and compute workloads that demand sustained performance. The recorded data shows the PRO W7400 delivers roughly 11 times the FP32 compute throughput (7.885 TFLOPS vs 716.8 GFLOPS), has 14 times the shading units (1792 vs 128), and features 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory compared to the 820M's system-shared memory. Anyone needing professional-grade rendering or compute should select the PRO W7400; anyone needing an efficient IGP for a portable device should consider the 820M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the PRO W7400's 55 W TDP, making it suitable for fanless or low-power portable designs. The 820M also requires no power connectors, whereas the PRO W7400, despite also having no power connectors listed, carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The 820M's base clock of 400 MHz and boost clock of 2800 MHz demonstrate a wide dynamic range, allowing it to idle low and scale up when needed. The integrated nature means the display outputs are portable device dependent, which is expected for an IGP.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw performance and professional features. It delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 123.2 GTexel/s texture fill rate, and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate. The 820M, by comparison, offers 716.8 GFLOPS, 22.40 GTexel/s, and 11.20 GPixel/s. The PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores versus the 820M's 2, a significant advantage in ray-traced workloads. The PRO W7400 also has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 820M relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The PRO W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the 820M's outputs depend entirely on the host portable device.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different RDNA generations. The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0. This places the 820M in the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, while the PRO W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The manufacturing processes differ: the 820M is built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The PRO W7400 has known transistor and die data: 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database.

The core configurations differ substantially. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), 4 render output units (ROPs), and 2 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The 820M's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at a 1:1 ratio (716.8 GFLOPS), and the PRO W7400 also runs FP16 at 1:1 (7.885 TFLOPS). Neither GPU lists tensor cores in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP. The PRO W7400 also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both support ray tracing, but with different core counts. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Radeon 820M's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Q: Which GPU is smaller or more compact?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is an IGP with no slot width listed, meaning it is integrated into the host chip. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a discrete single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs, and neither has individual benchmark scores recorded. However, the specification data reveals the magnitude of the performance gap. The most significant difference is in FP32 compute: the PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS versus the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. This represents an 11-fold advantage for the PRO W7400. In texture fill rate, the PRO W7400 achieves 123.2 GTexel/s compared to the 820M's 22.40 GTexel/s, a 5.5-fold difference. Pixel rate shows the PRO W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M, a 6.3-fold advantage.

The memory subsystem reinforces this separation. The PRO W7400's 172.8 GB/s bandwidth from dedicated GDDR6 is not directly comparable to the 820M's system shared memory, which has system-dependent bandwidth. The PRO W7400's 8 GB capacity also contrasts with the 820M's reliance on shared system memory. Clock behavior differs as well: the 820M boosts to 2800 MHz while the PRO W7400 boosts to 1100 MHz, but the PRO W7400's massive core count (1792 vs 128 shading units) more than compensates for its lower clock speed. The PRO W7400's 28 ray tracing cores versus the 820M's 2 represents a 14-fold difference in ray tracing hardware resources.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The AMD Radeon 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. The PRO W7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm²; the 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown. The 820M's base clock is 400 MHz with a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The PRO W7400's memory clock is 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective speed; the 820M's memory clock is system shared.

Core configurations differ by an order of magnitude: 128 vs 1792 shading units, 8 vs 112 TMUs, 4 vs 64 ROPs, and 2 vs 28 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 820M has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors. The PRO W7400 measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the 820M has no dimensions listed and its outputs are portable device dependent. The PRO W7400 uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 820M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both share a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and 1:1 FP16/FP32 ratios. The 820M was released on 2025-02-28, and the PRO W7400 on 2025-08-02. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the PRO W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. Both GPUs are currently marked as Active in production status.