AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head comparison runs between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE. However, the recorded data for the RX 6600 LE provides a clear reference point for its compute performance, while the 820M's specifications allow for a structural comparison.

The RX 6600 LE posts an average benchmark score of 70,829 across its recorded tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score reaches 69,229, while its Geekbench Vulkan score comes in at 72,428. These results place the card at the 91st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The 820M, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores available in the database.

The RX 6600 LE's closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile with an average score of 70,140, representing a 1% advantage for the RX 6600 LE. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 69,986, which the RX 6600 LE beats by 1.2%. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M averages 71,768, putting it 1.3% ahead of the RX 6600 LE, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,870, trailing by 1.4%. These margins are tight, indicating the RX 6600 LE performs in a well-defined competitive band.

The fundamental compute gap between the two AMD parts is substantial. The RX 6600 LE delivers 8.942 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 820M manages 716.8 GFLOPS. This represents a multiplier of roughly 12.5x in raw floating-point throughput. The pixel rate tells a similar story: the RX 6600 LE achieves 159.7 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M, a difference of approximately 14.3x. Texture rate favors the discrete card even more decisively, with 279.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, a gap of about 12.5x.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 LE wins in every measurable compute category tracked in the database. Its 1,792 shading units dwarf the 820M's 128. The texture mapping unit count stands at 112 versus 8, and the render output units number 64 versus 4. The ray tracing core count of 28 on the RX 6600 LE far exceeds the 2 present on the 820M.

For gaming and GPU-accelerated workloads, the RX 6600 LE's dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 820M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory configuration. This creates a structural advantage for the discrete card in texture-heavy and memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications.

The 820M's advantages are confined to power and physical integration. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for compact, portable devices, whereas the RX 6600 LE demands 132 W and a 1x 8-pin power connector. The 820M is an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors, fitting directly into a mobile processor package. The RX 6600 LE is a dual-slot card measuring 190 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

The 820M also carries a newer architecture generation. It uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the RX 6600 LE uses RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm process. This architectural recency does not offset the massive compute disparity, but it does indicate the 820M benefits from more modern instruction-level efficiency per unit of silicon.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families within AMD's lineup. The 820M is built on RDNA 3.5 and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile platform, using the Krackan Point 2 chip. The RX 6600 LE uses RDNA 2.0, belongs to the Navi II generation of the RX 6000 series, and is built on the Navi 23 chip.

Process technology differs significantly. The 820M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 6600 LE uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node gives the integrated part a transistor density advantage per square millimeter, though the database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for the 820M. The RX 6600 LE contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a density of 46.7 million transistors per square millimeter.

Clock behavior diverges as well. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The RX 6600 LE starts at 1,626 MHz base, boosts to 2,495 MHz, and has a game clock of 2,045 MHz. The 820M's higher boost clock reflects the efficiency of its newer architecture and smaller process node, but the core count disparity overwhelms this clock advantage.

Memory architecture represents the most consequential difference. The 820M uses system shared memory with a bus width and type both listed as system shared. This means the IGP borrows from the host's RAM, with bandwidth dependent on the platform's memory subsystem. The RX 6600 LE carries 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate.

API support is identical for both parts: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The RX 6600 LE offers display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the 820M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The RX 6600 LE's FP16 performance runs at 17.88 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, indicating dedicated half-rate execution. The 820M lists FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 and FP32 at the same rate without a throughput advantage for reduced precision.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE is the dominant performer in absolute terms. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the 820M's 50th percentile places them in entirely different performance tiers. The RX 6600 LE delivers roughly 12.5x the FP32 compute, 14.3x the pixel throughput, and 12.5x the texture rate of the 820M. For any workload that stresses GPU compute, the discrete card wins decisively.

The 820M serves a fundamentally different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor target ultraportable and low-power devices where a discrete card cannot physically fit. The data shows the 820M trades massive compute capacity for integration efficiency, operating at a fraction of the power envelope. Its 4 nm process and RDNA 3.5 architecture represent the latest generation of AMD's integrated graphics, but the core resource count remains small.

Buyers who need dedicated graphics performance should select the RX 6600 LE based on its benchmark results. The card's nearest rival comparisons show it performs within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M, confirming its position in the mid-range discrete segment. Users who require a compact, low-power solution with modern architecture should consider the 820M, accepting its limited compute resources as a trade-off for portability.

The RX 6600 LE's production status remains active, as does the 820M's. The RX 6600 LE released on December 7, 2023, while the 820M followed on February 28, 2025. The RX 6600 LE's predecessor is listed as Navi, with its successor as Navi III, which corresponds to the generation containing the 820M. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, placing the two parts in adjacent generations despite their performance disparity.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The RX 6600 LE scores 1% above the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile, 1.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, and 1.4% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 6650M by 1.3%.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RX 6600 LE delivers 8.942 TFLOPS, while the 820M provides 716.8 GFLOPS. The discrete card offers approximately 12.5x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the 820M support the same APIs as the RX 6600 LE?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The RX 6600 LE uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory with the bus width and type listed as system shared, and bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: How do the process nodes differ?

A: The 820M uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the RX 6600 LE uses a 7 nm TSMC process. The RX 6600 LE contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, while the 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The 820M has a 15 W TDP with no power connectors and no slot width, functioning as an IGP. The RX 6600 LE has a 132 W TDP, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, a suggested 300 W PSU, and occupies a dual-slot form factor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded specifications:

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Navi II (RX 6000) |

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | Navi 23 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1,626 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,800 MHz | 2,495 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not listed | 2,045 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1,750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 1,792 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 8 | 112 |

| Render Output Units | 4 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 159.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 279.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS | 8.942 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 17.88 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 132 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 190 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width |

| Release Date | February 28, 2025 | December 7, 2023 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Navi |

| Successor | Not listed | Navi III |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 91 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 (no benchmarks recorded) | 70,829 |