AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S, with the RX 7700S dominating across every measurable category. The RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 28.6 times the 716.8 GFLOPS produced by the 820M. This is not a close contest by any metric available in the database.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The RX 7700S reaches 320.0 GTexel/s, while the 820M manages only 22.40 GTexel/s, a difference of approximately 14.3 times. Pixel fill rates show an even larger disparity: the RX 7700S outputs 160.0 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M, making the discrete part roughly 14.3 times faster in rasterization throughput as well.

The RX 7700S has three recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 2185, its Geekbench OpenCL score is 62983, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 36380. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. The RX 7700S holds a percentile rank of 78 among all GPUs, while the 820M sits at the 50th percentile.

The RX 7700S average benchmark score of 33849 places it in close company with several established desktop parts. The nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7950, averages 33951, a delta of only 0.3 percent against the RX 7700S. The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33997, which is 0.4 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB scores 33694, putting it 0.5 percent behind, and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 averages 33622, which is 0.7 percent behind. These tight margins indicate that the RX 7700S performs at a level comparable to those well-known desktop GPUs, despite being a mobile part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different manufacturing processes. The 820M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC node, built on the Krackan Point 2 chip. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RX 7700S uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, built on the Navi 33 chip, and carries the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Navi Mobile generation within the RX 7000M series.

The transistor counts could not be more different. The RX 7700S integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The 820M transistor count and die size are both listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison of die efficiency is possible from the recorded data.

Compute resources scale in proportion to the performance gap. The RX 7700S contains 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 820M contains 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. In every category, the RX 7700S has exactly 16 times the hardware resources of the 820M. This consistent ratio suggests the RX 7700S was designed as a fully discrete solution, while the 820M is an integrated graphics processor with minimal resource allocation.

The FP16 compute ratio also differs. The 820M achieves 716.8 GFLOPS in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with its FP32 throughput. The RX 7700S reaches 40.96 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision math at twice the rate of its FP32 peak. This gives the RX 7700S a distinct advantage in workloads that can utilize FP16 arithmetic, such as certain machine learning and graphics effects.

Clock behavior reflects their different roles. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, a large dynamic range typical of integrated graphics that must scale aggressively with thermal and power headroom. The RX 7700S has a base clock of 1500 MHz, a game clock of 2200 MHz, and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The RX 7700S starts at a much higher base frequency and maintains a smaller boost range, consistent with a dedicated GPU running at sustained power levels.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700S wins in every performance-oriented category recorded in the database. Its FP32 compute of 20.48 TFLOPS, texture rate of 320.0 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 160.0 GPixel/s place it in a completely different performance class than the 820M. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a 128 bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth gives it substantial memory headroom for high-resolution textures and complex scenes. The 820M relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, which introduces inherent latency and capacity constraints that a dedicated memory pool avoids.

The 820M wins in efficiency-oriented metrics. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the 100 W TDP of the RX 7700S, making it suitable for thin and light portable devices where power draw is tightly constrained. The 820M also carries a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz compared to the 2500 MHz boost of the RX 7700S, and it uses a more advanced 4 nm process node versus the 6 nm node of the RX 7700S. These factors point to a part designed for battery conservation and modest graphics duties rather than maximum frame rates.

The 820M also holds a release date advantage. It launched on 2025-02-28, while the RX 7700S launched on 2023-01-03. This means the 820M is a newer design by roughly two years, though its performance class remains far below the older discrete GPU. The production status for both parts is listed as Active.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the RX 7700S uses Navi 33. The 820M is built on RDNA 3.5 with a 4 nm process; the RX 7700S is built on RDNA 3.0 with a 6 nm process. The RX 7700S has known transistor count and die size figures of 13,300 million and 204 mm², while the 820M lists both as unknown.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 820M uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz, listed as 18 Gbps effective.

Core counts differ by a factor of 16 across shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores. The RX 7700S has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The 820M has a lower base clock at 400 MHz versus 1500 MHz, but a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz versus 2500 MHz. The RX 7700S also lists a dedicated game clock of 2200 MHz, a field the 820M does not have.

Power and interface specifications diverge sharply. The 820M draws 15 W, while the RX 7700S draws 100 W. The 820M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 7700S uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent.

API support is identical. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores listed. The 820M predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the RX 7700S predecessor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a successor listed. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 716.8 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon 820M.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP figures for each GPU?

A: The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the RX 7700S has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores, while the 820M has 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The 820M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 7700S is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How does the RX 7700S compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RX 7700S averages 33849, which is 0.3 percent below the AMD Radeon HD 7950, 0.4 percent below the AMD Radeon RX 480, 0.5 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB, and 0.7 percent above the NVIDIA RTX A5000.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 7700S is the substantially faster GPU by every performance metric in the database. Its 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 320.0 GTexel/s texture rate, 160.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth place it in a performance class roughly 16 times larger in core resources than the 820M. Its percentile rank of 78 versus 50 for the 820M confirms the gap in overall standing among all GPUs.

The AMD Radeon 820M serves a different purpose entirely. Its 15 W TDP, 4 nm process node, and system shared memory design make it an integrated solution for power-constrained portable devices. It cannot compete with the RX 7700S in raw performance, and the database contains no benchmark scores for it, while the RX 7700S has three recorded results. The 820M is the appropriate choice for systems where power draw must stay minimal and graphics demands are modest.

The RX 7700S is the appropriate choice for any workload requiring sustained graphics performance. Its benchmark scores align closely with established desktop GPUs such as the Radeon HD 7950, Radeon RX 480, GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB, and RTX A5000, all within a 0.7 percent margin. Users needing dedicated memory, high pixel throughput, or ray tracing capability should select the RX 7700S. Users prioritizing low power consumption and a newer manufacturing process should consider the 820M, but they must accept a performance level that is orders of magnitude lower.