AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing within AMD's current lineup. The 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Krackan Point 2 chip, utilizing the RDNA 3.5 architecture. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation specifically designed for Strix Point Mobile platforms. The RX 7600, in contrast, is a discrete graphics card from the Radeon RX 7000 series, built on the Navi 33 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The 820M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7600 uses a larger 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The RX 7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so direct comparisons on that front are not possible from recorded data.

The compute resources show a massive gap. The 820M contains 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 2 ray tracing cores. The RX 7600 scales this up dramatically with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 32 ray tracing cores. This 16-fold difference in shading units and TMUs, and a 16-fold difference in ROPs, explains most of the performance disparity between the two.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The RX 7600 has a base clock of 1,720 MHz, a boost clock of 2,655 MHz, and a game clock of 2,250 MHz. While the 820M actually boosts higher than the RX 7600, the vastly larger execution resources of the discrete card outweigh this clock advantage. The memory situation reinforces the divide: the 820M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, as does the RX 7600. Power requirements differ sharply: the 820M is rated at 15 W TDP with no power connectors, while the RX 7600 consumes 165 W and requires a single 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The 820M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the RX 7600 is a dual-slot card measuring 204 mm in length and 115 mm in height, offering 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two GPUs. However, the RX 7600 has a substantial set of individual benchmark scores, and its percentile ranking provides context. The RX 7600 sits at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15,171. The 820M holds the 50th percentile and has an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no recorded benchmark submissions.

The RX 7600's benchmark results show consistent performance across different test suites. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2,310. Geekbench OpenCL yields 88,051, while Geekbench Vulkan produces 34,401. Passmark tests show a G3D score of 16,634, a G2D score of 984, and a GPU compute score of 8,790. Legacy DirectX tests in Passmark show 226 for DirectX 9, 172 for DirectX 11, 84 for DirectX 10, and 58 for DirectX 12.

The nearest rivals in the database for the RX 7600 provide useful comparison points. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM has an average score of 15,199, which is 0.2% higher than the RX 7600. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15,082, sitting 0.6% lower. The AMD Radeon 680M, an integrated GPU, scores 15,270, which is 0.7% higher than the RX 7600. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15,063, coming in 0.7% lower. These narrow deltas indicate that the RX 7600 clusters tightly with these four rival products in average performance, despite the architectural differences among them.

The lack of benchmark data for the 820M means the database cannot quantify its performance relative to the RX 7600 through direct scores. The 820M's percentile placement at 50 suggests it sits at the median of all GPUs, but without recorded benchmark submissions, this placement likely reflects its specification-based classification rather than measured results.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 wins decisively in every measurable performance category recorded in the database. Its pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s versus the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s shows a 15-fold advantage. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 339.8 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance for FP32 and FP16 is 21.75 TFLOPS for the RX 7600 versus 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M, a 30-fold difference.

The RX 7600's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth stands in sharp contrast to the 820M's system-shared memory. This gives the RX 7600 a clear advantage in texture-heavy workloads, high-resolution rendering, and any scenario where memory bandwidth limits performance. The 820M's system-dependent bandwidth means its memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration, which the database records as unknown but inherently variable.

The 820M wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. At 15 W TDP, it uses 90% less power than the RX 7600's 165 W. As an IGP with no power connectors and no separate slot width, it fits into portable devices without additional cooling or power delivery infrastructure. The RX 7600 requires a dual-slot design, a single 8-pin connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU, making it unsuitable for compact or low-power systems.

The 820M's higher boost clock of 2,800 MHz versus the RX 7600's 2,655 MHz suggests that in specific burst workloads where the IGP can sustain boost frequencies, it may execute certain instructions at a faster rate per cycle. However, the 16-fold difference in execution resources means this clock advantage translates into negligible real-world benefit in rendering or compute tasks.

Ray tracing capability exists on both, with 2 ray tracing cores on the 820M and 32 on the RX 7600. The RX 7600's 16-fold advantage in ray tracing cores positions it for hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads, while the 820M's minimal allocation suggests ray tracing is not a primary use case for the integrated part.

FAQ

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The 820M's smaller process node allows for higher transistor density in a given area, though the RX 7600 still packs far more transistors overall at 13,300 million.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM, with system-dependent bandwidth. The 820M has no dedicated video memory.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The 820M is rated at 15 W TDP. The RX 7600 is rated at 165 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The 820M has no power connectors, while the RX 7600 requires a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU supports newer APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no API advantage for either GPU in the recorded data.

Q: What is the RX 7600's closest rival in benchmark scores?

A: The nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 680M with an average score of 15,270, which is 0.7% higher than the RX 7600's 15,171. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is 0.2% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X is 0.6% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti is 0.7% lower.

Q: Does the 820M have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database shows an average benchmark score of 0 for the 820M, with no individual benchmark entries. The RX 7600 has ten recorded benchmark scores across 3DMark, Geekbench, and Passmark tests.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 dominates in every recorded computational metric: 30 times higher FP32 throughput, 15 times higher pixel rate, 15 times higher texture rate, and 16 times more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a dedicated, high-bandwidth memory subsystem that the 820M cannot match with system-shared memory.

The RX 7600's benchmark scores place it at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 15,171. Its nearest rivals cluster within 0.7% of this score, indicating that the RX 7600 delivers performance consistent with mid-range discrete graphics. The 820M, with no recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile ranking, lacks any measured performance data to compare directly.

The 820M's advantages are confined to power consumption and physical integration. At 15 W TDP with no power connectors and IGP slot width, it suits ultraportable devices where battery life and thermal limits take priority over raw performance. The RX 7600's 165 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 450 W PSU requirement place it firmly in desktop systems with adequate cooling and power delivery.

The release timeline shows the 820M launched on 2025-02-28, while the RX 7600 launched on 2023-05-24. The RX 7600's predecessor is listed as Navi II, and its successor is Navi IV. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

For users seeking a discrete graphics solution for gaming, rendering, or compute workloads, the RX 7600 delivers measurable performance in established benchmarks. For users needing graphics capability integrated into a low-power mobile platform, the 820M offers RDNA 3.5 features with a minimal power footprint.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | AMD Radeon RX 7600 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | Unknown | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | Unknown | 204 mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1,720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,800 MHz | 2,655 MHz |

| Game Clock | None listed | 2,250 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 128 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 8 | 128 |

| ROPs | 4 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 339.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS | 21.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 165 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-05-24 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 269 USD |

| Length | None listed | 204 mm (8 inches) |

| Height | None listed | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

The specification table confirms the fundamental divide: the RX 7600 is a fully discrete graphics card with dedicated memory, substantial compute resources, and desktop-oriented power requirements, while the 820M is an integrated solution optimized for low power and portability. The RX 7600 carries a launch MSRP of 269 USD, while the 820M has no listed launch MSRP, reflecting its role as a platform component rather than a standalone product.