AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7600S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 7600S. The Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, while the RX 7600S has a full suite of ten benchmark results. The absence of comparable data means the comparison relies entirely on the RX 7600S’s recorded performance and the architectural specifications of both parts.

The RX 7600S posts an average benchmark score of 16,696 across its recorded tests. Its strongest individual result comes from Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 73,868, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 68,012. The PassMark G3D score of 15,408 indicates substantial rasterization performance, while PassMark GPU Compute at 6,520 shows a smaller but still significant compute capability. The PassMark DirectX 9 score of 211 is notably higher than the DirectX 11 score of 140, the DirectX 10 score of 74, and the DirectX 12 score of 65. The PassMark G2D score of 776 reflects 2D graphics throughput.

The RX 7600S sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing it above the majority of recorded graphics processors. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T400 4 GB, which scores 16,792, a mere 0.6% higher, and the NVIDIA T400, which scores 16,508, a 1.1% gap. The GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 also appears nearby at 16,504, a 1.2% difference, while the Tesla M4 leads at 16,932, a 1.4% margin. These tight deltas indicate the RX 7600S clusters within a narrow performance band among its recorded competitors.

The Radeon 820M, by contrast, has no benchmark entries. Its percentile ranking is listed as 50, but without a single test score, this rank cannot be verified against actual measurements. The 820M’s FP32 throughput of 716.8 GFLOPS, texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s provide theoretical ceilings, but the database holds no empirical results for this part.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600S wins across every measurable benchmark category in the database, which is expected given its much larger execution resources. Its 15.77 TFLOPS of FP32 compute dwarfs the 820M’s 716.8 GFLOPS, a 22-fold difference in raw shader math. The RX 7600S also doubles its FP16 rate to 31.54 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, whereas the 820M’s FP16 output matches its FP32 at 716.8 GFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio.

For texture-heavy workloads, the RX 7600S delivers 246.4 GTexel/s against the 820M’s 22.40 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rates show a similar divide: 140.8 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s. The RX 7600S’s 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 820M relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning the 820M’s memory performance is not fixed but varies with the host platform.

The RX 7600S’s ray tracing hardware, 28 RT cores, exceeds the 820M’s 2 RT cores by a factor of 14. This suggests the RX 7600S can handle ray-traced effects with far greater parallelism, though neither part has dedicated tensor cores.

The 820M’s only advantage lies in its power envelope. At 15 W TDP, it consumes one-fifth the power of the RX 7600S’s 75 W TDP. This makes the 820M suitable for ultraportable devices where thermal and battery constraints dominate, while the RX 7600S targets performance-oriented laptops that can sustain higher power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations and design intents. The Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process node, fabricated as part of the Krackan Point 2 chip. Its generation is listed as Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile), and it succeeds the Navi II IGP. The RX 7600S uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm TSMC node, with the Navi 33 chip and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. Its generation is Navi Mobile (RX 7000M), succeeding the Polaris Mobile.

The process node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 6 nm. The RX 7600S integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The 820M’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no density comparison can be made.

The RX 7600S’s larger chip supports 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. This represents a 14x difference in shading units, a 14x difference in TMUs, a 16x difference in ROPs, and a 14x difference in RT cores.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores. The RX 7600S’s FP16 rate of 31.54 TFLOPS at 2:1 indicates it can process half-precision data at twice the rate of FP32, a common feature for compute workloads. The 820M’s 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio means no such throughput advantage exists.

The RX 7600S’s game clock of 1865 MHz sits between its base of 1500 MHz and boost of 2200 MHz. The 820M’s base clock is 400 MHz with a boost of 2800 MHz, showing a much wider clock range. The 820M’s memory clock is listed as system shared, while the RX 7600S runs its GDDR6 at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The RX 7600S belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the 820M has no series designation. The RX 7600S uses the Navi 33 chip, the 820M uses Krackan Point 2. Architecture differs: RDNA 3.0 versus RDNA 3.5.

Process node: 6 nm for the RX 7600S, 4 nm for the 820M. Transistor count: 13,300 million versus unknown. Die size: 204 mm² versus unknown. Clock speeds: the RX 7600S bases at 1500 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz with a game clock of 1865 MHz; the 820M bases at 400 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz with no game clock listed.

Memory configuration: the RX 7600S has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth; the 820M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Shading units: 1,792 versus 128. TMUs: 112 versus 8. ROPs: 64 versus 4. RT cores: 28 versus 2.

Pixel rate: 140.8 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 246.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. FP32: 15.77 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. FP16: 31.54 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. TDP: 75 W versus 15 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Release date: January 3, 2023 for the RX 7600S, February 28, 2025 for the 820M. Both are active in production, both are IGP-class slot widths, both have no power connectors, and both use portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, while the RX 7600S boosts to 2200 MHz. However, the RX 7600S has a much higher base clock at 1500 MHz versus 400 MHz.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the RX 7600S have?

A: The RX 7600S provides 256.0 GB/s over an 8 GB GDDR6 memory interface on a 128-bit bus. The 820M’s bandwidth is system dependent because it uses shared system memory.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The RX 7600S delivers 15.77 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. This is a 22-fold difference in raw shader throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7600S has 28 RT cores, while the 820M has 2 RT cores, a 14x difference.

Q: What is the power consumption of each?

A: The RX 7600S has a TDP of 75 W, while the 820M has a TDP of 15 W, making the 820M five times more power-efficient on paper.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear separation in performance class. The RX 7600S, with its 15.77 TFLOPS FP32, 8 GB dedicated memory, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, targets demanding gaming and compute workloads. Its 60th percentile ranking and tight clustering with the NVIDIA T400 series confirm it sits in a mid-range mobile segment. The 820M, with 716.8 GFLOPS and shared system memory, cannot approach this level of throughput. Its 50th percentile rank, despite lacking any benchmark scores, likely reflects its position as an integrated graphics solution.

The architecture differences amplify this gap. The RX 7600S’s RDNA 3.0 on 6 nm integrates 13,300 million transistors, while the 820M’s RDNA 3.5 on 4 nm has unknown transistor counts but far fewer execution units. The RX 7600S’s 14x advantage in shading units, TMUs, and RT cores means it handles complex scenes and ray-traced effects with proportionally more parallelism. The 820M’s higher boost clock of 2800 MHz cannot compensate for a 14x reduction in shader count.

For users, the choice depends on the host device. The 820M, with its 15 W TDP and system-shared memory, suits integrated graphics in thin-and-light laptops where power draw must stay minimal. The RX 7600S, with 75 W TDP and dedicated GDDR6, fits performance laptops with active cooling and larger batteries. The RX 7600S’s release in January 2023 gives it a longer driver maturity period, while the 820M’s February 2025 release is recent. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, so price comparisons cannot be made. The recorded benchmark data, where it exists, belongs entirely to the RX 7600S, and that data shows a capable mid-range mobile GPU. The 820M remains unmeasured, leaving its practical performance to theoretical specification analysis.