AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon PRO W7700 occupy opposite ends of AMD’s graphics stack. The 820M is a 15 W integrated part for mobile processors, while the W7700 is a 190 W professional desktop card. The database’s percentile ranking makes the gap explicit: the 820M sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero, whereas the W7700 ranks at the 95th percentile with a recorded average score of 118,976. These are not competing products; they are contrasting solutions for different workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a strict separation of use cases. The Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor for thin-and-light laptops, with a 15 W power envelope, system-shared memory, and no dedicated video memory. Its 128 shading units and 4 ROPs target basic display output and light 2D work. The Radeon PRO W7700 is a professional workstation card with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, 3072 shading units, and 96 ROPs. Its benchmark record shows a Geekbench OpenCL score of 108,245 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,706, placing it far beyond the 820M’s capabilities.

Buyers needing compute performance, large memory buffers, or professional rendering should choose the W7700. Users whose requirements are limited to integrated graphics for everyday tasks should consider the 820M, as it consumes a fraction of the power and requires no discrete slot. The 820M has no recorded benchmarks, so its performance cannot be quantified against the W7700, but its architectural limits make the hierarchy clear.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different RDNA revisions and different manufacturing nodes. The 820M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The W7700 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process, built around the Navi 32 chip with a 346 mm² die size and 28,100 million transistors. Transistor density for the W7700 is 81.2 million per square millimeter. The 820M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Shading resources differ by an order of magnitude. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The W7700 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 2 on the 820M versus 48 on the W7700. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature levels match. The 820M’s FP16 throughput is listed as 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the W7700 delivers 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, indicating a different execution path for half-precision work.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 820M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The W7700 provides 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M’s memory clock is listed as “System Shared,” while the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. This memory disparity directly influences what each card can handle in professional applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The 820M has no entries in the benchmarks field, while the W7700 has two recorded scores: 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan. The W7700’s average benchmark score is 118,976. Without 820M scores, the relative performance cannot be expressed as a delta percentage.

The W7700’s nearest rivals provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GB10 averages 117,393, which is 1.3% lower than the W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation averages 117,088, sitting 1.6% behind. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395, trailing by 4.0%. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944, which is 4.4% lower. These deltas show the W7700 leading its comparison group by a small but consistent margin in average benchmark score.

The 820M’s 50th percentile rank places it at the median of all GPUs in the database, but with zero recorded benchmark scores, its practical performance remains unmeasured. The W7700’s 95th percentile rank places it well above the majority of all GPUs, with concrete scores backing that placement.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 4 nm for the 820M versus 5 nm for the W7700. Base clocks are 400 MHz for the 820M and 1900 MHz for the W7700. Boost clocks are 2800 MHz and 2600 MHz respectively. The 820M’s pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s and texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s. The W7700’s pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M versus 31.95 TFLOPS for the W7700.

Power requirements differ substantially. The 820M has a 15 W TDP, an IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP, dual-slot width, and a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 450 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 820M versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7700. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the 820M, while the W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The W7700 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The 820M has no listed dimensions.

Release dates place the 820M later, on 2025-02-28, while the W7700 launched on 2023-11-12. The W7700 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The 820M has no launch MSRP. The 820M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP; the W7700’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. Production status is Active for the 820M and not listed for the W7700.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 has 3072 shading units. The Radeon 820M has 128 shading units.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM and system-dependent bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The 820M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP, uses one 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 450 W.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the W7700?

A: The W7700 scores 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average benchmark score of 118,976. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API features?

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

Q: What is the W7700’s standing among its nearest rivals?

A: The W7700 leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4.0%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4% in average benchmark score.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 820M wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP allows it to operate without external power or cooling beyond what a laptop chassis provides. Its IGP form factor and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface suit compact portable devices. The 400 MHz base clock and 2800 MHz boost clock indicate a design tuned for low power draw rather than sustained throughput. For users who need graphics output on a mobile processor without discrete hardware, the 820M is the appropriate choice.

The Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every compute and memory metric. Its 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 16 GB GDDR6 capacity enable large datasets and complex rendering workloads. The 48 ray tracing cores and 96 ROPs provide hardware acceleration for professional visualization tasks. Its 95th percentile rank and benchmark scores of 108,245 in OpenCL and 129,706 in Vulkan confirm strong compute performance. The dual-slot card with a 190 W TDP and 450 W suggested power supply is designed for desktop workstations, not portable systems.

The 820M’s 50th percentile rank without any benchmark scores leaves its real-world performance undefined, but its 128 shading units and 4 ROPs cap its ceiling. The W7700’s 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs give it a 24-fold advantage in shading resources and a 24-fold advantage in texture units. The pixel rate difference is even larger: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 249.6 GPixel/s, a factor of over 22. The W7700’s 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 throughput with 2:1 ratio allows accelerated half-precision workloads, while the 820M’s 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 at 1:1 ratio offers no such advantage.

Selection depends on workload. The data shows the W7700 as a professional-grade compute and visualization card with measurable performance and a clear lead over its nearest competitors. The 820M serves as an integrated solution for low-power mobile devices. No benchmark overlap exists in the database, but the specification gap defines the boundary between the two.