AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc 130T Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc 130T Mobile are both integrated graphics solutions, but they target very different performance tiers. The database shows a clear disparity in raw compute resources and output rates, with the Intel part holding a substantial advantage in most measured categories. This analysis separates the two based strictly on recorded specifications and recorded benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark suite for these two IGPs shows no direct head-to-head scores in the database, meaning there are no comparative frame rate or synthetic test numbers to list side by side. Instead, the comparison rests on the derived performance indicators available for each product. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile delivers a pixel rate of 61.60 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon 820M records 11.20 GPixel/s. That places the Intel part at approximately 5.5 times the pixel throughput of the AMD part, a gap that directly influences fill-rate-bound workloads such as high-resolution rendering and heavy post-processing effects.

Texture rate follows a similar pattern. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile reaches 123.2 GTexel/s, whereas the AMD Radeon 820M records 22.40 GTexel/s. This is a 5.5x advantage for Intel, which matters for games and applications that sample multiple textures per pixel. The FP32 compute figures widen the gap further. Intel lists 3.942 TFLOPS of single-precision performance, while AMD lists 716.8 GFLOPS. That means the Arc 130T Mobile delivers about 5.5 times the FP32 throughput of the Radeon 820M, a meaningful margin for general compute tasks and shader-heavy scenes.

The FP16 comparison is where the architectural split becomes most visible. The AMD Radeon 820M records 716.8 GFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not gain any extra throughput by switching to half-precision math. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile records 7.885 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP32 rate. That gives Intel roughly an 11x advantage in FP16 workloads, which is relevant for AI inference, certain image processing routines, and applications that explicitly use half-precision shaders. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock relationship in terms of raw output, though the base and boost figures differ in ways that reflect the larger execution engine.

Neither part has any recorded average benchmark score, and both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. That percentile value reflects the absence of measured results rather than a performance equivalence. The database currently contains no nearest rival entries for either product, so no delta percentages or rival names are available for direct comparison. The analysis below therefore relies on the recorded throughput, texture, pixel, and compute specifications as the primary evidence.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture and is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation and is integrated into the Krackan Point 2 chip. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture and is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation and is integrated into the Arrow Lake-H chip. The process node difference is small, but the architectural designs diverge sharply in execution resource counts.

The AMD part features 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. It also includes 2 ray tracing cores. The Intel part features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 28 render output units, along with 7 ray tracing cores. Intel’s execution resource counts are roughly 7 times higher across shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, which explains the throughput margins recorded in the pixel rate and texture rate fields. The ray tracing core count also favors Intel by a factor of 3.5, suggesting a stronger hardware path for ray-traced effects, though the database does not include specific ray tracing benchmark scores for either product.

Clock behavior differs between the two. The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. Despite the lower clock speeds, Intel achieves much higher output rates because of the larger number of execution units. This is a classic case where architecture scale outweighs clock frequency. The AMD part relies on a higher boost clock to extract performance from a much smaller shader array, while the Intel part uses a wider array at a more modest clock.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither product lists tensor cores, and both use system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth figure. The memory bus width is listed as system shared for both, meaning the database does not assign a fixed bus width to either IGP. The AMD part uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part is listed simply as IGP, which reflects its integration into the Arrow Lake-H package. The power connector field is listed as none for AMD and is not specified for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M has a few advantages that are not tied to raw throughput. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is higher than Intel’s 2200 MHz, which can help in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive scenarios where the GPU can ramp up quickly. Its 15 W TDP is lower than Intel’s 35 W TDP, meaning it is better suited to systems with stricter thermal and power budgets. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface gives it a dedicated bus path, whereas the Intel part is listed simply as IGP, which typically implies a shared fabric connection rather than a discrete PCIe link.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins in every measured throughput category. Its pixel rate is 61.60 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, and its FP32 compute is 3.942 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. The FP16 result is even more lopsided at 7.885 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. For any workload that stresses fill rate, texture sampling, or general shader compute, the Intel part is clearly the stronger option based on recorded data.

The AMD part also has a smaller execution footprint, which may translate into simpler driver scheduling or lower memory pressure in certain integrated configurations, but the database does not include measurements that would confirm such behavior. The Intel part’s 35 W TDP suggests it requires a more robust cooling solution, while the AMD part’s 15 W TDP fits into more power-constrained designs. For users who prioritize battery life or slim chassis integration, the AMD part has the recorded power advantage. For users who prioritize graphics performance, the Intel part has every recorded performance advantage.

Specification Differences

The two products differ on several recorded specifications. The architecture is RDNA 3.5 for AMD versus Xe-LPG+ for Intel. The process node is 4 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for Intel. The chip is Krackan Point 2 for AMD versus Arrow Lake-H for Intel. The generation is Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) for AMD versus Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) for Intel. The shading units are 128 versus 896. The texture mapping units are 8 versus 56. The render output units are 4 versus 28. The ray tracing cores are 2 versus 7.

Clock speeds differ, with AMD at a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, while Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD versus 61.60 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for AMD versus 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for Intel. TDP is 15 W for AMD versus 35 W for Intel. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus IGP for Intel.

Release dates differ as well. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile was released on 2025-01-12, while the AMD Radeon 820M followed on 2025-02-28. The predecessor names also differ: AMD’s is Navi II IGP, while Intel’s is HD Graphics-M. Both are listed as active production parts, and both have no recorded launch MSRP. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use system-shared memory and have system-dependent bandwidth. Neither has a recorded die size, transistor count, or transistor density.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile records 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M records 716.8 GFLOPS. Intel also records 7.885 TFLOPS of FP16 performance versus 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile records a pixel rate of 61.60 GPixel/s, while the AMD Radeon 820M records 11.20 GPixel/s. This gives Intel a roughly 5.5x advantage in fill rate.

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 896 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units.

Q: Do either of these GPUs have dedicated memory?

A: No. Both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Neither has a fixed memory bus width listed in the database.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile is the stronger graphics processor according to every recorded performance metric. Its pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and FP16 compute all exceed the AMD Radeon 820M by a wide margin. The recorded data shows a 5.5x advantage in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, and an even larger 11x advantage in FP16 compute. The Intel part also has more shading units, texture mapping units, render output units, and ray tracing cores. For any workload that depends on shader throughput or fill rate, the Intel Arc 130T Mobile is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon 820M has its own place. Its 15 W TDP is less than half of Intel’s 35 W TDP, which makes it a better fit for thin-and-light systems or devices where power draw and heat output are primary constraints. Its higher boost clock of 2800 MHz versus 2200 MHz could offer an edge in bursty, low-occupancy tasks, though the database does not include specific benchmark results to confirm this. The AMD part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which provides a dedicated bus connection, while the Intel part is listed simply as IGP.

Users who need integrated graphics for casual use, light media playback, or basic productivity will find the AMD Radeon 820M sufficient, especially in configurations where the 15 W TDP is a requirement. Users who intend to run more demanding games, creative applications, or compute tasks should choose the Intel Arc 130T Mobile based on its recorded throughput advantages. The data does not support any conclusion that the AMD part outperforms Intel in graphics workloads; the Intel part leads in every measured category. The power envelope is the only recorded specification where AMD holds a clear advantage.