AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 occupy opposite ends of the graphics performance spectrum, yet both are active products from the same manufacturer. The 820M is an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices, while the PRO W7600 is a single-slot workstation card with dedicated memory. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear separation in capability, but the architectural and specification differences explain exactly why these products exist for different tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins every measured performance comparison between the two. The database records an average benchmark score of 87108 for the PRO W7600, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, indicating it performs at the median level of all graphics processors. In practical terms, the PRO W7600 delivers workstation-class compute throughput, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92688.

The 820M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP allows it to operate within portable device thermal envelopes without any power connectors. The PRO W7600 requires a 130 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 300 W. The 820M uses system shared memory, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM rather than carrying dedicated video memory. This makes it suitable for basic graphics output and light acceleration in thin-and-light laptops, where the PRO W7600's physical size, power draw, and cooling requirements would be impossible to accommodate.

The PRO W7600 wins in rendering throughput. Its pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s compares to the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s, a difference of over an order of magnitude. Texture rate shows a similar gap: 312.3 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. For any workload involving pixel fill, texture sampling, or compute shaders, the PRO W7600 dominates. The 820M's only advantage is that it operates within devices that do not support discrete graphics cards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of the same underlying architecture family. The 820M is built on RDNA 3.5, the newer architecture revision, while the PRO W7600 uses RDNA 3.0. Despite the newer architecture, the 820M's implementation is far smaller in scale. The 820M is part of the Navi III IGP generation, specifically from the Strix Point Mobile lineup, using the Krackan Point 2 chip. The PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation.

Process nodes differ significantly. The 820M is fabricated on a 4 nm process, while the PRO W7600 uses a 6 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC. The smaller process node does not compensate for the massive difference in transistor count. The PRO W7600 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The compute pipeline configuration shows the scale difference. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation units. The PRO W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This is a 16x difference in shading units, a 16x difference in TMUs, and a 16x difference in ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: the 820M has 2 ray tracing cores, while the PRO W7600 has 32.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 820M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The PRO W7600 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the PRO W7600 is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, while the 820M's memory clock is listed simply as system shared.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two GPUs. However, the PRO W7600's individual benchmark scores provide a reference point. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and Vulkan score of 92688 place it well above the median GPU. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, meaning the database has no quantitative performance data for it.

The PRO W7600's nearest rivals in the database further contextualize its position. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87445 on average, which is 0.4% below the PRO W7600. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85637, 1.7% lower. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134, which is 4.4% higher than the PRO W7600. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91671, 5% higher. These figures show the PRO W7600 sits in a competitive band among professional GPUs, slightly behind the RTX A4500 variants but ahead of the Quadro GP100 and CMP 40HX.

The compute throughput difference between the two AMD GPUs is stark. The PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and 716.8 GFLOPS of FP16. The FP32 figure for the PRO W7600 is approximately 28 times higher than the 820M. The FP16 ratio differs because the PRO W7600 uses a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while the 820M uses a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The PRO W7600's 156.2 GPixel/s pixel rate is about 14 times the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 312.3 GTexel/s is about 14 times the 820M's 22.40 GTexel/s. These ratios reflect the identical 16x difference in ROP and TMU counts, but the actual throughput gap is slightly smaller due to the 820M's higher boost clock relative to its smaller pipeline.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a newer architecture?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses RDNA 3.0. The 820M is from the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile), and the PRO W7600 is from the Radeon Pro Navi generation.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM. The PRO W7600 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How much power does each GPU require?

A: The 820M has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors, as it is an integrated GPU. The PRO W7600 has a 130 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the PRO W7600?

A: The PRO W7600 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 115 mm (4.5 inches) in height. The 820M is an IGP with no physical card dimensions, as it is integrated into a portable device.

Q: Which GPU has better benchmark scores?

A: The PRO W7600 has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92688, with an average benchmark score of 87108. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The PRO W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The 820M has portable device dependent display outputs, meaning they vary based on the laptop or device it is integrated into.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The 820M uses a 4 nm process node, while the PRO W7600 uses 6 nm. The PRO W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm², while the 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The PRO W7600 has a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2440 MHz. The 820M's higher boost clock does not compensate for its much smaller pipeline.

Memory specifications are completely different. The 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The PRO W7600 has 8 GB GDDR6 memory, a 128-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 2250 MHz memory clock with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

Compute units scale dramatically. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M versus 156.2 GPixel/s for the PRO W7600. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 39.98 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The 820M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The PRO W7600 has a 130 W TDP, is single-slot, uses a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The PRO W7600 is 241 mm long and 115 mm high. The 820M has no dimensions. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces, support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates differ by about a year and a half. The PRO W7600 was released on 2023-08-02, while the 820M was released on 2025-02-28. The PRO W7600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The 820M has no launch MSRP. The PRO W7600's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the 820M's predecessor is the Navi II IGP.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear separation of roles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the performance product, with a 93rd percentile standing among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 87108. Its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and CMP 40HX, sit within 0.4% and 1.7% respectively, confirming it competes in the professional workstation segment. The RTX A4500 and RTX A4500 Mobile are 4.4% and 5% ahead, placing the PRO W7600 just below that tier.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no benchmark scores, no dedicated memory, and a 50th percentile placement. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor indicate it serves as integrated graphics for portable devices. The 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores provide entry-level capability, but the system shared memory and system dependent bandwidth mean performance varies with the host system.

For a workstation task involving large compute workloads, the PRO W7600 is the only viable choice. The 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8 GB GDDR6 capacity provide the resources for professional rendering, simulation, or compute workloads. The 820M cannot approach this performance level, as its 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and shared memory architecture limit it to basic graphics output and light acceleration.

For a portable device requiring minimal power draw and no discrete card, the 820M is the appropriate product. Its 4 nm process node and 15 W TDP allow integration into laptops without active cooling or power connectors. The database confirms it is an active product with a successor relationship to the Navi II IGP, indicating AMD continues to develop this integrated line.

The PRO W7600's 130 W TDP and single-slot form factor with a 6-pin power connector suit a desktop workstation. The 820M's portable device dependent display outputs and IGP slot width suit a laptop or mini PC. The choice between these GPUs depends entirely on the form factor and performance requirements of the target system, not on any overlap in capability.