AMD Radeon 820M vs AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M and the AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU occupy different performance tiers despite sharing the same 4 nm TSMC process node. The data indicates a clear split: the Radeon 820M is positioned as a low-power integrated graphics solution, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU is a more substantial console-class part with roughly double the shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units.

In terms of raw throughput, the Ryzen Z1 GPU holds decisive advantages across every measured metric. Its FP32 output of 2.560 TFLOPS is significantly higher than the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, which translates to a roughly 3.5 times advantage in single-precision compute. The gap widens further in FP16 performance: the Ryzen Z1 GPU delivers 5.120 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the 820M manages 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means the Ryzen Z1 GPU has a roughly 7.1 times advantage in half-precision workloads, a meaningful difference for applications that leverage mixed-precision computation.

Pixel throughput follows the same pattern. The Ryzen Z1 GPU achieves 20.00 GPixel/s compared to the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s, a 1.8 times advantage. Texture rate shows a similar margin: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, again roughly 1.8 times higher. These figures indicate that the Ryzen Z1 GPU is better suited for resolution-heavy rendering and texture-intensive scenes, while the 820M remains competitive only in lower-resolution or less demanding scenarios.

The memory subsystem also favors the Ryzen Z1 GPU. It uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 51.20 GB/s of bandwidth. The 820M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent, meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform. The Ryzen Z1 GPU's fixed memory configuration provides a predictable foundation for sustained performance, whereas the 820M's results would hinge entirely on the memory subsystem of the host device.

Clock behavior presents a more nuanced picture. The 820M has a lower base clock of 400 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU runs at a 1500 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The 820M's boost ceiling is 300 MHz higher, but its base clock is 1100 MHz lower. This suggests the 820M is designed to idle aggressively and ramp up under load, whereas the Ryzen Z1 GPU maintains a higher floor. The 820M's 15 W TDP versus the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 30 W TDP reinforces this interpretation: the 820M is built for efficiency, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU spends more power to sustain higher performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different RDNA generations. The Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5 and is listed under the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU uses RDNA 3.0 and is classified as a console GPU. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process, so the architectural gains in the 820M come from the newer RDNA iteration rather than a process shrink.

The chip-level details differ substantially. The 820M is built on the Krackan Point 2 chip, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU uses the Phoenix chip. The Phoenix chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, with a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct comparison is possible on those fields. However, the Ryzen Z1 GPU's die is large enough to house 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The 820M, by contrast, has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The Ryzen Z1 GPU doubles each of these execution resources.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The 820M uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, a common design for integrated graphics in portable devices. The Ryzen Z1 GPU carries 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with a fixed 51.20 GB/s bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective transfer. The 820M's memory clock is likewise listed as system shared, meaning it depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

The two parts also differ in physical design and connectivity. The 820M is an IGP with a slot width of IGP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, indicating that the host laptop or handheld determines the actual output options. The Ryzen Z1 GPU has no display outputs at all, a defining trait for a console-class part that renders frames internally without driving a display directly. Its dimensions are 280 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 21 mm in width, which suggests a board-level component rather than a chip integrated into a motherboard.

The API support is identical: both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software compatibility is not a differentiator; the performance gap is purely a matter of hardware resources and power allocation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries between the Radeon 820M and the Ryzen Z1 GPU. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence of direct comparative data means the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications and throughput figures recorded for each part individually.

The FP32 gap is the most telling. The Ryzen Z1 GPU's 2.560 TFLOPS is 3.57 times the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. In practical terms, this means any shader-heavy workload, such as modern game rendering or compute tasks, will complete substantially faster on the Ryzen Z1 GPU. The FP16 delta is even larger: 5.120 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS, a 7.14 times difference. This matters for applications that use FP16 for machine learning inference or certain rendering techniques, where the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 2:1 ratio effectively doubles its throughput relative to its FP32 figure.

Pixel rate and texture rate both show a 1.79 times advantage for the Ryzen Z1 GPU. The 20.00 GPixel/s and 40.00 GTexel/s figures indicate that the Ryzen Z1 GPU can fill frames and sample textures nearly twice as fast as the 820M. For a 1080p gaming workload, the Ryzen Z1 GPU can drive higher frame rates or higher graphical settings before hitting the same bottlenecks that would constrain the 820M.

The ray tracing comparison follows the resource count: 4 ray tracing cores on the Ryzen Z1 GPU versus 2 on the 820M. The database does not list specific ray tracing benchmark scores, so the advantage is inferred from the doubled core count rather than measured results.

Memory bandwidth is another clear separator. The Ryzen Z1 GPU's fixed 51.20 GB/s is a concrete figure, while the 820M's bandwidth is system dependent. On a platform with dual-channel DDR5 memory, the 820M might approach or exceed that figure, but on a single-channel or lower-speed configuration, it would fall short. The Ryzen Z1 GPU's dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 allocation removes this variability.

Clock speed behavior introduces a partial counterpoint. The 820M's 2800 MHz boost clock is 300 MHz higher than the Ryzen Z1 GPU's 2500 MHz boost. However, this advantage is insufficient to overcome the Ryzen Z1 GPU's doubled execution resources. Even if the 820M sustains its maximum boost clock, its 128 shading units cannot match the 256 shading units of the Ryzen Z1 GPU, which also runs at a respectable 2500 MHz boost.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear hierarchy: the Ryzen Z1 GPU outperforms the Radeon 820M across every throughput metric. Its FP32 output is 3.57 times higher, its FP16 output is 7.14 times higher, its pixel rate is 1.79 times higher, and its texture rate is 1.79 times higher. It also carries twice the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores, plus a fixed 16 GB LPDDR5 memory pool with 51.20 GB/s bandwidth.

The Radeon 820M is not without its own strengths. Its 15 W TDP is half that of the Ryzen Z1 GPU, making it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where power draw is constrained. Its higher boost clock of 2800 MHz indicates it can ramp quickly when needed. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs suggest it is designed for integration into laptops rather than standalone installation.

The Ryzen Z1 GPU's 30 W TDP and physical dimensions (280 mm length, 111 mm height, 21 mm width) point to a different use case entirely. With no display outputs, it is clearly intended for devices that render frames and pass them to a separate display pipeline, such as a handheld gaming console. Its launch MSRP is 599 USD, recorded once here for reference. The Radeon 820M has no launch MSRP in the database.

The performance gap is large enough that no workload in the recorded data favors the 820M. The Ryzen Z1 GPU wins on compute, pixel throughput, texture throughput, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing resources. The 820M's only advantages are lower power consumption, a higher boost clock, and a newer RDNA 3.5 architecture. These factors make it a reasonable choice for efficiency-focused designs, but not for performance-focused ones.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Ryzen Z1 GPU delivers 2.560 TFLOPS compared to the Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, a 3.57 times advantage.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ryzen Z1 GPU has a fixed 51.20 GB/s from 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU has a 30 W TDP, exactly double.

Q: Are the APIs the same on both GPUs?

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

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Ryzen Z1 GPU has 4 ray tracing cores, while the Radeon 820M has 2.

Q: What process node do both GPUs use?

A: Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon 820M | AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Console GPU (AMD) |

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | Phoenix |

| Transistors | unknown | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 51.20 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 256 |

| TMUs | 8 | 16 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 20.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 40.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 2.560 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 5.120 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | null |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Dimensions | null | 280 mm x 111 mm x 21 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-09-17 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | null |