AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900D Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D?

A: The Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process with the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the Radeon PRO W7900D uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process with the Navi 31 chip. The 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, whereas the W7900D is a discrete Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) card.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while the Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384 bit bus with 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7900D's memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), whereas the 820M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Q: What is the difference in shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Radeon 820M has 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores. The Radeon PRO W7900D has 6144 shading units and 96 ray tracing cores, representing a 48x increase in shading units and a 48x increase in ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each card?

A: The Radeon 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 22.40 GTexel/s texture rate. The Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 414.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 827.9 GTexel/s texture rate, which is approximately 37x higher in both metrics.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Radeon PRO W7900D has a 295 W TDP and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors. The W7900D also suggests a 600 W power supply, and it occupies a triple-slot form factor.

Q: What display outputs does each card support?

A: The Radeon 820M's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the system it is integrated into. The Radeon PRO W7900D has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear separation of roles between these two AMD products. The Radeon 820M is an integrated solution designed for portable devices, with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and system shared memory. Its 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores position it for basic graphics workloads in mobile contexts. The Radeon PRO W7900D, by contrast, is a professional workstation card with 6144 shading units, 96 ray tracing cores, 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 295 W TDP. The benchmark percentile field shows both cards at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, but the raw specification differences are substantial.

Users with a Radeon 820M in a portable device should expect integrated-level performance suitable for everyday tasks and light graphics work. The Radeon PRO W7900D targets professional environments requiring high compute throughput, large memory capacity, and multiple display outputs. The W7900D's 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS indicates a 74x difference in raw floating-point capability. The choice between these two depends entirely on the workload and platform: one is embedded into a mobile chip, the other is a triple-slot discrete card requiring a 600 W power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark field contains no recorded entries, so direct measurement comparisons are not available in the database. However, the specification data provides clear deltas across every compute metric. The FP32 performance difference is the most striking: the Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS versus the Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, a 74x advantage. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with the W7900D at 52.99 TFLOPS and the 820M at 716.8 GFLOPS, both operating at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The Radeon PRO W7900D achieves 827.9 GTexel/s with its 384 texture mapping units, while the Radeon 820M manages 22.40 GTexel/s with 8 TMUs. This represents a 37x difference. The pixel rate gap is also 37x, with the W7900D at 414.0 GPixel/s and the 820M at 11.20 GPixel/s, reflecting the 192 ROPs versus 4 ROPs difference.

Memory bandwidth is another major separator. The W7900D's 864.0 GB/s over a 384 bit bus dwarfs the 820M's system dependent bandwidth. The W7900D also has a dedicated memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), whereas the 820M relies entirely on system memory. Clock speeds show an interesting inversion: the 820M has a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz compared to the W7900D's 2156 MHz, but the base clocks differ significantly, with the W7900D at 1327 MHz and the 820M at 400 MHz. The 820M's higher boost clock does not compensate for its vastly smaller execution resource pool.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process node differs: 4 nm for the Radeon 820M versus 5 nm for the Radeon PRO W7900D, though both use TSMC as the foundry. The chip identifiers are distinct: Krackan Point 2 for the 820M and Navi 31 for the W7900D. The W7900D has a codename, Plum Bonito, while the 820M has none recorded.

Transistor counts and die size are only known for the W7900D: 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die with a density of 109.1M / mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. The memory subsystems are completely different: system shared memory for the 820M versus 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus for the W7900D.

Compute unit counts scale accordingly. The W7900D has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The power delivery requirements diverge sharply: 15 W TDP with no connectors for the 820M versus 295 W TDP with 2x 8-pin connectors for the W7900D. The W7900D also lists a suggested PSU of 600 W.

The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 820M and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7900D. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the W7900D: 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width, occupying a triple-slot form factor. The 820M is an IGP with no dimensions recorded. Display outputs also differ: portable device dependent for the 820M, while the W7900D offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, a newer iteration than the RDNA 3.0 found in the Radeon PRO W7900D. The 820M belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, while the W7900D belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The 820M's predecessor is recorded as Navi II IGP, and the W7900D's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega.

The process node advantage goes to the 820M at 4 nm versus the W7900D's 5 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. Despite the smaller process node, the 820M is an integrated part with no discrete memory, no power connectors, and a 15 W TDP. The W7900D, built on the larger 5 nm node, packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 109.1M / mm².

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is identical. The architecture differences manifest primarily in execution resources and memory architecture. The RDNA 3.5 IGP relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the RDNA 3.0 discrete card has dedicated GDDR6 with fixed bandwidth. The 820M's boost clock of 2800 MHz exceeds the W7900D's 2156 MHz, an interesting architectural choice that partially compensates for the smaller shader count at lower power envelopes.

The release dates differ, with the 820M launching on 2025-02-28 and the W7900D on 2025-09-24. Both cards are currently listed as active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices where discrete graphics are not feasible. The 820M's higher boost clock of 2800 MHz compared to the W7900D's 2156 MHz indicates a design optimized for burst performance within a constrained power budget. Its 4 nm process node is smaller than the W7900D's 5 nm node, reflecting a more modern manufacturing approach for integrated parts.

The Radeon PRO W7900D wins decisively in raw compute capability. Its 6144 shading units deliver 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 74x the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. The 96 ray tracing cores versus 2 provide a 48x advantage for ray-traced workloads. The 48 GB GDDR6 memory with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and professional visualization tasks that the 820M's system shared memory cannot accommodate.

The W7900D also wins in display flexibility with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the 820M's outputs depend on the portable device. The W7900D's 384 bit memory bus and 827.9 GTexel/s texture rate make it suited for texture-heavy rendering workloads. The 820M's system dependent bandwidth means its performance varies with the host system's memory configuration.

The data shows the 820M is designed for integrated mobile graphics where power draw and physical space are constrained. The W7900D is designed for professional workstations requiring maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and multiple high-bandwidth display outputs. The 74x FP32 gap, 48x ray tracing core gap, and 37x pixel rate gap separate these products into entirely different performance classes. The 820M's advantages are limited to power draw, process node, and boost clock, while the W7900D dominates every throughput metric recorded in the database.