AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M and AMD Radeon RX 9070 occupy entirely different segments of the graphics market, and the benchmark data confirms a complete separation in capability. The RX 9070 holds every recorded benchmark win, with no overlapping tests where the 820M manages to outperform it. The 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for mobile systems with a 15 W power envelope, while the RX 9070 is a dual-slot discrete add-in card with a 220 W power draw. The database records zero wins for the 820M across all benchmark categories, while the RX 9070 claims victories in every test where data exists.

The RX 9070's percentile ranking of 69 places it comfortably above the 820M's percentile of 50. This means the discrete card outperforms a majority of all GPUs tracked in the database, while the integrated part sits exactly at the median. The average benchmark score for the RX 9070 is 23,877, whereas the 820M has no recorded average score, reflecting the absence of benchmark entries for the integrated solution. For use cases involving 3D rendering, compute workloads, or high-resolution gaming, the RX 9070 is the only viable option between these two. The 820M serves basic display output and light graphical tasks in portable devices, but the data shows no scenario where it wins a performance comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations and use different silicon. The 820M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture with the Krackan Point 2 chip, belonging to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The RX 9070 uses RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 48 chip, part of the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation. Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The 820M integrates 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation pipelines. It includes 2 ray tracing cores. The RX 9070 scales this up dramatically with 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, along with 56 ray tracing cores. The discrete card has 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 151.0M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz, which is a very wide range for an integrated part. The RX 9070 runs at a 1,330 MHz base clock, a 2,070 MHz game clock, and a 2,520 MHz boost clock. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The 820M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while the RX 9070 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth with a 2,518 MHz memory clock running at 20.1 Gbps effective. The RX 9070 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the 820M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the 820M is portable device dependent, while the RX 9070 provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 9070's benchmark results provide a clear picture of its performance across multiple test suites. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 6,290 points. Geekbench OpenCL returns a score of 131,539, while Geekbench Vulkan produces 58,705. PassMark results show 25,381 in G3D, 14,737 in GPU Compute, 343 in DirectX 9, 281 in DirectX 11, 141 in DirectX 10, and 74 in DirectX 12. The G2D score is 1,280. The 820M has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning no direct numerical comparison is possible for these specific tests.

The nearest rivals for the RX 9070 place its performance in context. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z scores 23,736 on average, which is 0.6% lower than the RX 9070's average of 23,877. The AMD Radeon RX 6800S averages 24,063, putting the RX 9070 0.8% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile averages 23,628, making the RX 9070 1.1% faster. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER averages 24,170, with the RX 9070 trailing by 1.2%. These narrow deltas indicate the RX 9070 sits in a tightly contested performance band among high-end mobile and older desktop parts.

Pixel and texture throughput numbers reinforce the gap. The RX 9070 delivers 322.6 GPixel/s and 564.5 GTexel/s, while the 820M manages 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows 36.13 TFLOPS for the RX 9070 in both FP32 and FP16, versus 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M in both precision formats. The RX 9070 is roughly 50 times faster in raw FP32 throughput, a margin that explains why the integrated part has no competitive standing in compute-heavy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2,800 MHz, which is higher than the RX 9070's boost clock of 2,520 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the RX 9070 have?

A: The RX 9070 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 644.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the RX 9070 has a TDP of 220 W and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

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

Q: How does the RX 9070 compare to the RTX 3080 Mobile?

A: The RX 9070 has an average benchmark score of 23,877, which is 1.1% higher than the RTX 3080 Mobile's average score of 23,628.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The 820M was released on 2025-02-28, and the RX 9070 was released on 2025-03-05.

The Verdict

The data separates these two GPUs into distinct roles with no ambiguity. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics solution for portable devices, drawing 15 W with system shared memory and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Its 128 shading units and 4 ROPs target basic display tasks and light graphical workloads in mobile systems. The absence of any benchmark scores in the database means its performance is unmeasured in the current dataset, but its specifications place it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs.

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 is a high-performance discrete card with 3,584 shading units, 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 644.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its 69th percentile ranking and average score of 23,877 place it in competition with the GTX TITAN Z, RX 6800S, RTX 3080 Mobile, and RTX 2080 SUPER, with deltas ranging from 1.2% behind to 1.1% ahead. The 220 W power draw and dual-slot form factor confirm this is a desktop-oriented part for gaming and compute workloads. The launch MSRP for the RX 9070 is 549 USD.

Users with a portable device requiring an integrated solution would use the 820M, as it is IGP-only with no power connectors and a 15 W envelope. Users needing dedicated graphics performance, ray tracing capability with 56 RT cores, and high-bandwidth memory would select the RX 9070. The data shows no crossover point where these products compete for the same user.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | AMD Radeon RX 9070 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 53,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 357 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 151.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1330 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 2520 MHz |

| Game Clock | null | 2070 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2518 MHz 20.1 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 644.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 8 | 224 |

| ROPs | 4 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 322.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 564.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 36.13 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 36.13 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 220 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b3x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2025-03-05 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Navi III |

| Launch MSRP | null | 549 USD |