AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 820M contains no benchmark entries, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a full suite of nine recorded tests. The RX 7700 posts an average benchmark score of 15852, placing it at the 58th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The 820M, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, indicating no measurable performance data has been captured for it.

The RX 7700 delivers 25.18 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 25.18 TFLOPS of FP16 compute, both at a 1:1 ratio. Its pixel rate reaches 236.1 GPixel/s, and its texture rate reaches 393.4 GTexel/s. These figures place it firmly in the discrete desktop segment. The 820M, as an integrated graphics processor, delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 compute, with a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s. The compute gap is substantial: the RX 7700 delivers roughly 35 times the FP32 throughput of the 820M.

In the PassMark G3D test, the RX 7700 scores 20974. This is its strongest single benchmark result. Its PassMark G2D score of 1206 indicates strong 2D rendering performance relative to its 3D capabilities. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 106028 reflects robust general-purpose compute performance. The DirectX 9 PassMark score of 261, DirectX 11 score of 186, DirectX 10 score of 92, and DirectX 12 score of 96 show the card's API-level performance distribution across legacy and modern graphics interfaces. The PassMark GPU compute score of 10963 confirms sustained compute throughput beyond graphics workloads.

The RX 7700's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its positioning. The AMD Radeon R9 370X shows an average score of 15862, a delta of -0.1% relative to the RX 7700, meaning the two are statistically indistinguishable in average performance. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 posts 16014, a delta of -1%, putting the RX 7700 marginally behind. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 scores 15679, a delta of +1.1%, placing the RX 7700 slightly ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti records 16129, a delta of -1.7%, meaning the RX 7700 trails that card by a small margin. These deltas are all within roughly two percentage points, indicating the RX 7700 competes in a tightly clustered performance band.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865 for the RX 7700 represents its modern DirectX 12 workload performance. No comparable score exists for the 820M, as its benchmark array is empty. The wins tally reflects this asymmetry: the RX 7700 holds all wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the 820M has none.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 820M have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The 820M has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile ranking of 50. The database contains no performance measurements for this GPU.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon RX 7700?

A: The RX 7700 has an average benchmark score of 15852 and a percentile ranking of 58 among all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the RX 7700 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti has an average score of 16129, which is 1.7% higher than the RX 7700's 15852. The RX 7700 trails by that margin.

Q: What is the closest rival to the RX 7700 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 370X has an average score of 15862, a delta of -0.1% relative to the RX 7700. This is the smallest performance gap among the listed nearest rivals.

Q: Does the RX 7700 outperform the AMD Radeon RX 9060?

A: No. The RX 9060 has an average score of 16014, which is 1% higher than the RX 7700's score. The RX 7700 is slightly behind.

Q: What is the RX 7700's best individual benchmark result?

A: Its highest recorded score is 20974 in the PassMark G3D test, which measures 3D graphics performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations within AMD's RDNA family. The 820M uses RDNA 3.5, while the RX 7700 uses RDNA 3.0. This generational gap affects several design parameters beyond raw compute.

The 820M is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC. The RX 7700 uses a 5 nm process node, also at TSMC. The smaller node gives the 820M a manufacturing advantage in transistor density per area, though its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The RX 7700, by contrast, has a documented transistor count of 28,100 million, a die size of 346 mm², and a transistor density of 81.2M per mm².

The 820M's chip is designated Krackan Point 2, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation under the Strix Point Mobile family. The RX 7700's chip is Navi 32, with the codename Wheat Nas, belonging to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The 820M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the RX 7700's predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV.

The 820M integrates 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and 2 ray tracing cores. The RX 7700 carries 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The RX 7700 has exactly 20 times the shading units, 20 times the TMUs, and 24 times the ROPs of the 820M. Its ray tracing core count is 20 times higher as well.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database's API records. Neither lists tensor cores. The 820M's memory subsystem is entirely system shared, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. The RX 7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 820M's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification in the database.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The RX 7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz, a boost clock of 2459 MHz, and a game clock of 2041 MHz. The 820M's boost clock is higher than the RX 7700's boost clock, but its base clock is far lower. The RX 7700 also lists a memory clock of 2438 MHz, which corresponds to 19.5 Gbps effective data rate. The 820M's memory clock is system shared.

Memory configuration differs completely. The 820M has system shared memory size, type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The RX 7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Power and physical specifications show the largest gap. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W, a dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin power connectors, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The RX 7700 measures 267 mm in length, 135 mm in height, and 50 mm in width. The 820M has no listed dimensions, consistent with its integrated nature.

Display outputs also differ. The 820M's outputs are portable device dependent. The RX 7700 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, and 1x USB Type-C.

Release dates show the 820M launched earlier. The 820M's release date is 2025-02-28, while the RX 7700's is 2025-09-17. Both are listed as active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its 25.18 TFLOPS FP32 compute dwarfs the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. Its 236.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 393.4 GTexel/s texture rate far exceed the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. Its 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth provides dedicated high-speed storage, whereas the 820M relies entirely on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The RX 7700's benchmark presence is comprehensive. It has nine recorded scores spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, OpenCL, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads. Its highest score of 20974 in PassMark G3D places it in the 58th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster within a 2.8 percentage point band, from the Pro W5500 at +1.1% to the RTX 3060 Ti at -1.7%. This indicates the RX 7700 sits in a competitive mid-to-high range segment where small margins separate cards.

The 820M's wins are architectural rather than performance-based. It uses a smaller 4 nm process node, giving it a density advantage. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz exceeds the RX 7700's 2459 MHz boost clock. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for portable devices, where power draw is a critical constraint. Its IGP form factor requires no additional power connectors and no dedicated slot space. The 820M's only recorded percentile is 50, tied to its zero average score, which reflects the absence of data rather than a performance verdict.

The RX 7700's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2865 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 106028 show strength in both gaming and compute scenarios. Its PassMark GPU compute score of 10963 reinforces this dual capability. The 820M, with its 2 ray tracing cores and 128 shading units, is positioned purely as an integrated solution for basic graphics and light workloads.

The Verdict

The database presents a clear split between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is a fully measured discrete desktop card with nine benchmark results, an average score of 15852, and a 58th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals, including the R9 370X, RX 9060, Pro W5500, and RTX 3060 Ti, all fall within 1.7% of its average score, confirming it competes in a tightly packed performance tier. The RX 7700's 28,100 million transistors, 2560 shading units, 40 ray tracing cores, and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth define it as a high-throughput part for demanding workloads.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile placeholder. Its specifications indicate an integrated GPU with 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores, running at a 15 W TDP with system shared memory. Its 4 nm process node and 2800 MHz boost clock are notable architectural details, but without performance data, the database cannot rank it against the RX 7700 or any other discrete GPU.

For the RX 7700, the data supports selection for users who need measurable, competitive performance in DirectX 12, OpenCL, and compute workloads. Its benchmark scores show balanced strength across legacy and modern APIs. For the 820M, the data supports selection only for scenarios where integrated graphics, low power draw, and portability are the primary requirements. The absence of benchmark data means no performance claims can be made from the database, and any comparison between the two must rely solely on the architectural and specification differences recorded here. The RX 7700 is the only one of the two with verified performance metrics, and it holds every win in the head-to-head comparison.