AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the win counts for both products stand at zero. This absence of paired testing means the analysis must rely on the individual benchmark records available for the RX 7800 XT and the architectural specifications of both parts.

The RX 7800 XT has a substantial set of recorded benchmark scores. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 4157 points. Geekbench OpenCL shows 18290 points, while Geekbench Vulkan reaches 54228 points. Passmark results include DirectX 10 at 121, DirectX 11 at 249, DirectX 12 at 93, DirectX 9 at 304, G2D at 1177, G3D at 24176, and GPU Compute at 13473. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11627.

The Radeon 820M has no benchmark entries at all. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50. The RX 7800 XT holds a percentile of 51. These percentile figures indicate that both products sit near the middle of the database distribution, but the 820M's lack of measured performance data leaves its standing entirely dependent on specification analysis rather than empirical results.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7800 XT provide context for its average score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 averages 11680, which is 0.5 percent higher than the RX 7800 XT. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M averages 11528, sitting 0.9 percent lower. The NVIDIA Tesla K20c averages 11479, trailing by 1.3 percent. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT averages 11842, leading by 1.8 percent. These narrow margins show the RX 7800 XT clustering tightly with mid-range and older high-end cards in average performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural generations and process nodes. The Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The RX 7800 XT uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III generation for the RX 7000 series. The 820M uses the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the RX 7800 XT uses the Navi 32 chip with the codename Wheat Nas.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The RX 7800 XT integrates 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The 820M lists its transistor count and die size as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison of those figures is possible from recorded data.

Shading unit counts reveal the scale gap. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and 2 ray tracing cores. The RX 7800 XT has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, and 60 ray tracing cores. That represents a 30-fold difference in shading units, a 30-fold difference in TMUs, and a 24-fold difference in ROPs.

Clock speeds show an interesting inversion. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The RX 7800 XT has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a boost clock of 2430 MHz, and a game clock of 2124 MHz. The 820M's boost clock exceeds the RX 7800 XT's boost clock by 370 MHz, but the integrated part starts from a much lower base.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. The 820M uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 624.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the RX 7800 XT is 2438 MHz, with 19.5 Gbps effective.

Pixel and texture rates scale with the hardware differences. The 820M produces 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. The RX 7800 XT produces 233.3 GPixel/s and 583.2 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows the same pattern: the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, while the RX 7800 XT delivers 37.32 TFLOPS for both, a difference of roughly 52 times.

Power requirements underline the positioning. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics processor. The RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W, uses dual 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 600 W suggested power supply. The RX 7800 XT is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 50 mm in width. The 820M's slot width is listed as IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7800 XT wins in every measurable performance category where data exists. Its recorded benchmarks span multiple APIs and workloads, from DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute tasks. The 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance profile cannot be quantified from the database.

The 820M wins in power efficiency by specification. At 15 W TDP, it consumes 248 W less than the RX 7800 XT. It requires no external power connectors and no suggested power supply rating. The RX 7800 XT needs dual 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU. For mobile or low-power integrated systems, the 820M's 4 nm process and 15 W envelope present a clear advantage.

The RX 7800 XT wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth stands in contrast to the 820M's system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Applications requiring large local memory pools or high bandwidth will favor the discrete card.

The 820M has a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz versus 2430 MHz, but this does not translate into higher throughput given the vastly smaller execution resources. The 820M's 2 ray tracing cores versus 60 in the RX 7800 XT indicate ray tracing workloads will favor the discrete part heavily.

The RX 7800 XT was released on 2023-09-05, while the 820M arrived on 2025-02-28. The 820M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, and the RX 7800 XT's predecessor is Navi II with a successor of Navi IV. Both are currently marked as active production.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2800 MHz, which is 370 MHz higher than the RX 7800 XT's boost clock of 2430 MHz.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W with no power connectors. The RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W, requires dual 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: What are the direct benchmark results for the Radeon 820M?

A: The database contains no benchmark entries for the Radeon 820M. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RX 7800 XT?

A: The RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11627 across all recorded tests, with a percentile of 51 versus all GPUs.

Q: How does the RX 7800 XT compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7800 XT trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 by 0.5 percent, leads the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M by 0.9 percent, leads the NVIDIA Tesla K20c by 1.3 percent, and trails the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.8 percent.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear functional split. The RX 7800 XT is the only one of the two with recorded performance measurements, and those measurements position it within a tight cluster of mid-range discrete GPUs. Its 24176 Passmark G3D score and 54228 Geekbench Vulkan score indicate strong general 3D rendering capability. Its 13473 Passmark GPU Compute score shows substantial compute throughput.

The 820M has no measured performance data, making any direct comparison impossible from the database. Its specifications describe an integrated processor with 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, operating at 15 W. The RX 7800 XT carries 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs at 263 W.

For users selecting a discrete graphics card for gaming, rendering, or compute workloads, the RX 7800 XT is the only choice supported by actual benchmark data. Its 16 GB GDDR6 memory and 624.1 GB/s bandwidth serve large textures and high-resolution workloads. Its launch MSRP was 499 USD.

For integrated systems where power consumption and physical footprint are primary constraints, the 820M's 15 W TDP and IGP form factor present the practical option. Its 4 nm process node and 2800 MHz boost clock indicate a modern design, but the database records no performance validation.

The RX 7800 XT's nearest rival comparisons show it trading places with the GTX 1660, Radeon Pro 5500M, Tesla K20c, and RX 6500 XT within a 3 percent band. This suggests the RX 7800 XT occupies a well-established performance tier. The 820M, by contrast, has no rivals listed and no scores, leaving its standing undefined.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus RDNA 3.0
• Chip: Krackan Point 2 versus Navi 32
• Codename: Not listed versus Wheat Nas
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Navi III (RX 7000)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: Unknown versus 28,100 million
• Die Size: Unknown versus 346 mm²
• Transistor Density: Not listed versus 81.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 400 MHz versus 1295 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2800 MHz versus 2430 MHz
• Game Clock: Not listed versus 2124 MHz
• Memory Clock: System Shared versus 2438 MHz 19.5 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: System Shared versus 16 GB
• Memory Type: System Shared versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 624.1 GB/s
• Shading Units: 128 versus 3840
• Texture Mapping Units: 8 versus 240
• Render Output Units: 4 versus 96
• Ray Tracing Cores: 2 versus 60
• Pixel Rate: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 233.3 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 22.40 GTexel/s versus 583.2 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 716.8 GFLOPS versus 37.32 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 37.32 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 15 W versus 263 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 600 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
• Dimensions: Not listed versus 267 mm 10.5 inches, 111 mm 4.4 inches, 50 mm 2 inches
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 versus 2023-09-05
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus Navi II
• Successor: Not listed versus Navi IV
• Launch MSRP: Not listed versus 499 USD
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 versus 11627
• Percentile Versus All GPUs: 50 versus 51
• Nearest Rivals: None listed versus four entries