AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon RX 7600M occupy entirely different segments of the mobile graphics spectrum. The data places the RX 7600M in the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the 820M sits at the 50th percentile. This percentile gap alone suggests the RX 7600M is the stronger performer in almost every conceivable workload, but the two chips are designed for different roles.

The Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the Krackan Point 2 chip, with a 15 W TDP and no dedicated memory. It uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent. This makes it suitable for lightweight tasks such as basic desktop rendering, video playback, and older or less demanding games. Its pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s are modest figures that indicate it can handle 1080p output for everyday use, but it will struggle with modern high-fidelity titles.

The Radeon RX 7600M, by contrast, is a discrete mobile GPU from the Radeon RX 7000 series, built on the Navi 33 chip. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 90 W TDP is six times that of the 820M, and it delivers a pixel rate of 154.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 269.9 GTexel/s. The recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775 for the RX 7600M confirms it as a capable performer for gaming and content creation on the go.

In terms of wins, the database records zero benchmark wins for the 820M and zero for the RX 7600M in direct head-to-head tests, because none were run. However, the available benchmark data for the RX 7600M, combined with its hardware specifications, indicates it wins decisively in compute performance, memory throughput, and rendering capabilities. The 820M wins in power efficiency and integration simplicity, as it requires no separate memory and draws only 15 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775, placing it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The RX 7600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Radeon RX 7600M has a TDP of 90 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7600M has 1792 shading units and 28 ray tracing cores. The 820M has 128 shading units and 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The 820M uses a 4 nm process node, while the RX 7600M uses a 6 nm process node, both fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are unavailable in the database, as the head-to-head benchmark array is empty for both GPUs. However, the RX 7600M has a standalone Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775, which provides a reference point. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP with an average score of 63830 (a delta of -0.1%), the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63842 (delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63693 (delta +0.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 at 64212 (delta -0.7%). These deltas show the RX 7600M is statistically tied with these rivals, within a fraction of a percent.

The 820M has no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals listed, so its performance can only be inferred from its architectural specifications. Its FP32 compute of 716.8 GFLOPS is dramatically lower than the RX 7600M's 17.27 TFLOPS, a difference of over 24 times. The pixel rate difference is similar: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s, roughly 13.8 times higher on the RX 7600M. Texture rate shows the RX 7600M at 269.9 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, a 12 times advantage.

Memory bandwidth is perhaps the most stark difference. The RX 7600M's 256.0 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth is fixed and independent of the system, whereas the 820M's bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it fluctuates based on the laptop's memory configuration and speed. In any realistic scenario with comparable system memory, the RX 7600M will have a substantial memory throughput advantage, which directly impacts texture streaming, high-resolution rendering, and compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 7600M uses a 6 nm process node, while the 820M uses a 4 nm node. The RX 7600M has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown, and its density is not listed.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The RX 7600M has a base clock of 1500 MHz, a boost clock of 2410 MHz, and a game clock of 2070 MHz. The memory clock for the RX 7600M is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed; the 820M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The RX 7600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The 820M has no dedicated memory, relying entirely on system shared memory. The RX 7600M's bandwidth is fixed at 256.0 GB/s, while the 820M's bandwidth is system dependent.

Shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operations units all favor the RX 7600M. It has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: 28 on the RX 7600M versus 2 on the 820M.

The bus interface differs as well. The RX 7600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. TDP is 90 W for the RX 7600M versus 15 W for the 820M. The RX 7600M's FP32 performance is 17.27 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 34.55 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The 820M's FP32 is 716.8 GFLOPS with FP16 at the same rate (1:1).

Architecture Differences

The architecture generations are distinct. The 820M is based on RDNA 3.5, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RX 7600M uses RDNA 3.0, part of the Navi Mobile generation for RX 7000M series. The 820M's chip is Krackan Point 2, while the RX 7600M uses Navi 33 with the codename Hotpink Bonefish.

The process node difference is notable: 4 nm for the 820M versus 6 nm for the RX 7600M, both from TSMC. The smaller node suggests the 820M benefits from newer manufacturing technology, which likely contributes to its much lower power consumption despite a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 2410 MHz). However, the RX 7600M compensates with far more execution resources: 14 times more shading units, 14 times more TMUs, 16 times more ROPs, and 14 times more ray tracing cores.

The RX 7600M's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile, while the 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. This lineage indicates the RX 7600M descends from a discrete mobile graphics line, while the 820M continues AMD's integrated processor graphics evolution.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also share the same display output description, portable device dependent, and both use no power connectors. Both are listed as IGP slot width, which is unusual for the RX 7600M given its 90 W TDP, but the data records it as such.

The release dates differ by roughly two years. The RX 7600M was released in January 2023, while the 820M was released in February 2025. The RX 7600M is part of the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the 820M has no series listing.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Radeon RX 7600M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775, placing it in the 89th percentile, with nearest rivals all within 0.7% of its score. The Radeon 820M has no benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, indicating it performs at the median level of all GPUs in the database.

Users who need substantial graphics compute, such as gaming at high settings, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated content creation, should select the RX 7600M. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 17.27 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for demanding mobile workloads. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware support for ray-traced effects, a feature the 820M lacks in practical terms with only 2 cores.

Users who prioritize low power consumption and minimal system complexity should consider the 820M. Its 15 W TDP is one-sixth that of the RX 7600M, and its integration into the Krackan Point 2 chip eliminates the need for separate video memory. For basic productivity, web browsing, and light media consumption, the 820M's 128 shading units and 716.8 GFLOPS of compute are adequate.

The architecture difference suggests the 820M's 4 nm process is more advanced than the RX 7600M's 6 nm process, but the RX 7600M's massive resource advantage outweighs the node advantage. The RX 7600M's 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die provide the physical hardware needed for high-performance graphics, while the 820M's unknown transistor count likely reflects a much smaller implementation.

The percentile placement reinforces this conclusion. The RX 7600M at the 89th percentile is within reach of top-tier mobile GPUs, while the 820M at the 50th percentile represents the middle of the performance distribution. For any workload where GPU performance matters, the RX 7600M is the clear choice. For power-sensitive, integrated scenarios, the 820M serves its purpose without the overhead of discrete memory and cooling. The data does not support any scenario where the 820M outperforms the RX 7600M in raw graphics capability.