AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two AMD parts cleanly by intent and capability. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the Krackan Point 2 chip, designed for portable devices where power draw is minimal. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card with a dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer. The database shows the W7500 holds a 59th percentile rank among all GPUs, while the 820M sits at the 50th percentile. For any workload that stresses raw throughput, the W7500 is the only choice. The 820M, with its system-shared memory and 15 W power envelope, serves a completely different segment: thin-and-light portables where the absence of a discrete card matters more than peak performance.

Benchmark results confirm the W7500 outperforms the 820M by a wide margin in every recorded test. The W7500 posts an average benchmark score of 16415, while the 820M has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. The data indicates the 820M is not designed for compute-heavy or graphics-intensive tasks; its role is basic display output and light acceleration. Users requiring professional-grade rendering, large data sets, or sustained GPU compute should select the W7500. Users constrained to a portable device with no expansion slot will rely on the 820M, as it is the only option present in that form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The 820M uses RDNA 3.5, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The W7500 uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The process node difference is notable: the 820M's 4 nm node is denser, but the W7500 compensates with a much larger chip. The W7500's die measures 204 mm² and contains 13,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The execution resources diverge sharply. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 raster operation units (ROPs). The W7500 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: the 820M includes 2, while the W7500 includes 28. Neither part has tensor cores. Clock speeds reflect the different design goals. The 820M runs a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The W7500 runs a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The 820M's higher boost clock helps it reach a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s, but those figures trail the W7500's 108.8 GPixel/s and 190.4 GTexel/s by nearly an order of magnitude.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 820M uses system-shared memory, with a bus width and type both listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The W7500 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the W7500 is 2000 MHz, translating to 16 Gbps effective. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7500's FP32 throughput is 12.19 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 24.37 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The 820M manages 716.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The W7500 wins in every measured performance category. Its FP32 compute of 12.19 TFLOPS dwarfs the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, a factor of roughly 17. The texture rate of 190.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s means the W7500 handles filtered and detailed textures far faster. The pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s shows a similar advantage in fill-rate-bound scenes. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth means the W7500 avoids the bottleneck of sharing system RAM with the CPU.

The 820M's advantages are not in performance but in integration. It is an IGP, meaning it requires no separate slot, no power connectors, and no additional cooling beyond what the portable device already provides. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the W7500's 70 W. The 820M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are whatever the laptop or handheld manufacturer implements. The W7500 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, which suits a fixed workstation setup with multiple monitors. The 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, and the W7500 also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, so the bus interface parity means the discrete card does not gain a bandwidth advantage from a wider link.

The W7500 supports a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 820M has no suggested PSU because it draws power from the system. The W7500 is a single-slot card measuring 216 mm in length, 115 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The 820M has no physical dimensions listed because it is soldered onto the motherboard. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The 820M has no MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The W7500. Its FP32 throughput is 12.19 TFLOPS, while the 820M manages 716.8 GFLOPS. The W7500 also delivers 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, whereas the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Does the 820M have dedicated video memory?

A: No. The 820M uses system-shared memory, with the type, size, and bus width all listed as "System Shared." Its bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning performance varies with the host system's RAM.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The W7500 is a single-slot card measuring 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm. The 820M is an IGP with no listed dimensions, as it is integrated into the Krackan Point 2 chip rather than being a separate card.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The W7500 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the 820M has 2. This gives the W7500 a substantial advantage in ray-traced workloads, though neither card has tensor cores.

Q: What is the power requirement for each GPU?

A: The 820M has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors. The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The W7500 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The 820M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the manufacturer of the portable device it is built into.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the 820M and the W7500. However, the W7500 has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the 820M has none. The W7500's Geekbench OpenCL score is 58213, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 68634. In Passmark tests, the W7500 scores 65 in DirectX 10, 125 in DirectX 11, 46 in DirectX 12, and 200 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 1174, its G3D score is 13368, and its GPU compute score is 5910. The average benchmark score for the W7500 is 16415.

The W7500's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has an average score of 16408, a 0% delta, meaning the W7500 essentially matches it. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16361, 0.3% behind the W7500. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16351, 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504, 0.5% ahead of the W7500. These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, placing the W7500 in a tight competitive cluster near the top of its performance tier.

For the 820M, the absence of any recorded benchmark scores means the database offers no direct performance comparison. The wins tally shows 0 wins for the 820M and 0 wins for the W7500 in head-to-head entries, but this reflects missing test data rather than a tie. The 820M's theoretical specifications, particularly its 128 shading units and 4 ROPs, indicate it cannot approach the W7500's throughput. The W7500's 1792 shading units and 64 ROPs provide a 14x and 16x advantage respectively, which is consistent with the FP32 and pixel rate gaps.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification field. The chip names are Krackan Point 2 for the 820M and Navi 33 for the W7500. The architecture is RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0. The process node is 4 nm versus 6 nm. The W7500 has a codename, Hotpink Bonefish, while the 820M has none. The generation field lists "Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile)" for the 820M and "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)" for the W7500.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The 820M runs at 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The W7500 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The memory clock is listed as "System Shared" for the 820M and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the W7500. Memory size is "System Shared" versus 8 GB. Memory type is "System Shared" versus GDDR6. Bus width is "System Shared" versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is "System Dependent" versus 256.0 GB/s.

Compute units differ: 128 shading units versus 1792, 8 TMUs versus 112, 4 ROPs versus 64, and 2 ray tracing cores versus 28. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s versus 108.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 190.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS. FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 15 W versus 70 W. Slot width is "IGP" versus "Single-slot." Power connectors are "None" for both. Suggested PSU is absent for the 820M and 250 W for the W7500. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Dimensions are absent for the 820M and 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm for the W7500.

Release dates differ by roughly a year and a half: the 820M launched on 2025-02-28, and the W7500 launched on 2023-08-02. The 820M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, and the W7500's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD, while the 820M has none. Both parts are currently marked as Active in production. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. API support is identical across DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7500's transistor count is 13,300 million, die size is 204 mm², and transistor density is 65.2 million per mm²; all three fields are unknown for the 820M.