AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon RX 7400 occupy different ends of the graphics spectrum, one as an integrated processor solution and the other as a dedicated add-in board. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural details reveal why these two parts serve completely different purposes. This analysis draws exclusively from recorded measurements and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7400 has benchmark data across eight tests, while the 820M currently has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The RX 7400's strongest result comes from the PassMark G3D test, where it scores 11,897 points. That score places it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs tracked, meaning roughly 83% of recorded graphics cards outperform it.

For compute workloads, the RX 7400 delivers a PassMark GPU Compute score of 5,152. Its DirectX 9 result reaches 176 points, DirectX 11 scores 97, and DirectX 10 lands at 59. The DirectX 12 score is 44 points, which represents the lowest API-specific result. The 2D graphics test shows 1,209 points.

The average benchmark score across all tests for the RX 7400 is 2,467. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 8040S with an average score of 2,440 (1.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2,433 (1.4% lower), the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2,425 (1.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2,422 (1.9% lower). These are extremely tight margins, all within a 1.9% spread, indicating the RX 7400 sits at the very edge of a cluster of low-end GPUs.

The 820M's percentile ranking of 50 places it at the midpoint of all GPUs, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot provide a direct numerical comparison between the two cards. What the data does show is that the RX 7400's 17th percentile ranking reflects a part that, while modest in absolute terms, still has a full set of measured scores. The 820M's 50th percentile suggests it occupies a middle position in the overall GPU landscape, but the lack of recorded scores means no direct performance delta can be calculated.

In raw throughput terms, the RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 147.2 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate, and 257.6 GTexel/s of texture fill rate. The 820M manages 716.8 GFLOPS FP32, 11.20 GPixel/s, and 22.40 GTexel/s. These figures confirm a massive gap in processing capacity, with the RX 7400 offering roughly 23 times the FP32 throughput, 13 times the pixel rate, and 11.5 times the texture rate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and architectures. The 820M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture built on TSMC's 4 nm process, fabricated as part of the Krackan Point 2 chip. Its generation is listed as Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile), indicating an integrated graphics processor. The RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process, with the Navi 33 chip under the codename Hotpink Bonefish, belonging to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation.

The die characteristics differ substantially. The RX 7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density figure can be derived.

Shading unit counts reflect the architectural split. The RX 7400 carries 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the RX 7400 has 28 RT cores, while the 820M has 2.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz, which represents a 7x boost range. The RX 7400 runs at a 1,452 MHz base, a 2,200 MHz game clock, and a 2,300 MHz boost. The 820M's higher boost clock suggests it can reach higher peak frequencies, but the massive difference in shading units makes the RX 7400 far faster in aggregate.

FP16 throughput shows another architectural difference. The 820M achieves 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it processes both formats at the same rate. The RX 7400 delivers 32.97 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 throughput when working with half-precision data. This indicates the RX 7400 has dedicated FP16 hardware paths that the 820M lacks.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 820M uses system shared memory, with size, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The RX 7400 has dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 2,250 MHz, which translates to 18 Gbps effective. The 820M's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, so no fixed figure exists.

Power delivery separates the two sharply. The 820M has a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width. The RX 7400 requires 43 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, a dual-slot form factor, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The bus interface is identical at PCIe 4.0 x8, but the physical implementation differs: one is built into the processor, the other is a standalone card.

API support matches across both parts: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 wins decisively in every measurable performance category. Its dedicated memory subsystem with 8 GB of GDDR6 and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, consistent performance that does not depend on system memory speed or capacity. The 2:1 FP16 ratio makes it notably more efficient for workloads that can use half-precision math, such as certain compute tasks.

The 820M wins on power efficiency and integration. At 15 W, it draws a fraction of the RX 7400's 43 W TDP, and it requires no additional power connectors. It fits into any portable device without occupying a slot, and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning the host system determines connectivity. For thin-and-light systems where battery life and thermal constraints dominate, the 820M represents the practical choice despite its lower performance.

The RX 7400's display output configuration includes 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, providing a fixed set of connectivity options. The 820M's outputs are entirely dependent on the portable device implementation, offering flexibility to the system designer but no guarantee of specific ports.

The RX 7400's 17th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms a meaningful portion of the GPU database, despite sitting close to several low-end rivals. The 820M's 50th percentile suggests it has broader relative standing, but this ranking likely reflects the integrated nature of the part rather than raw graphics capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS FP32, while the 820M provides 716.8 GFLOPS. The RX 7400 offers approximately 23 times the FP32 performance.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The RX 7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning no fixed specification exists.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The 820M has a 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 200 W PSU.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What is the RX 7400's benchmark standing?

A: It holds the 17th percentile across all tracked GPUs with an average score of 2,467. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 8040S, scores 2,440, a 1.1% difference.

Q: Why does the 820M have no benchmark scores?

A: The database currently lists no recorded benchmarks for the 820M despite its 50th percentile ranking. Without measured scores, no direct comparison to the RX 7400's individual test results is possible.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split in use cases. The RX 7400 is the only one of the two with measured performance, and its scores place it in a tightly contested low-end segment. Its 1,792 shading units, 8 GB GDDR6, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a foundation for 1080p gaming and general GPU workloads. The 2,467 average score and 17th percentile ranking confirm it is a modest performer, but it is a real one with dedicated resources.

The 820M offers no benchmark evidence in the database, so its practical performance cannot be quantified here. What the data does show is that it is built on a newer 4 nm process versus the RX 7400's 6 nm, uses RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0, and consumes only 15 W versus 43 W. Its 50th percentile ranking, despite lacking scores, suggests the database positions it as a middle-tier part, likely reflecting its role as an integrated solution rather than its raw graphics output.

For a builder choosing a dedicated graphics card, the RX 7400 is the measurable option. It has data, it has dedicated memory, and it has a fixed feature set. For a system integrator designing a portable device, the 820M fits where the RX 7400 cannot: it requires no slot, no power connector, and no PSU headroom beyond the host processor's allocation.

The RX 7400 is the faster part by every recorded metric, and the 820M is the more integrated and power-efficient option. The choice depends entirely on the target system, and the data supports that distinction.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | AMD Radeon RX 7400 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | Navi 33 |

| Transistors | Unknown | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 204 mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1,452 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,800 MHz | 2,300 MHz |

| Game Clock | None listed | 2,200 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 8 | 112 |

| ROPs | 4 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 2 | 28 |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 16.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 147.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 257.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 43 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 200 W |

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

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2025-08-07 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Navi II |

| Successor | None listed | Navi IV |

| Production Status | Active | Not specified |