AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc 140V Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 820M against the Intel Arc 140V Mobile. Both entries show an empty benchmark array, and the wins counter registers zero for each side. This means the comparative performance picture must be assembled from the architectural and specification data rather than from measured frame rates or synthetic scores.

What the data does show is a substantial gap in raw compute capacity. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile reaches 3.994 TFLOPS. That is a 5.6x difference in single-precision floating-point work per clock cycle, assuming both are operating at their peak. The pixel throughput tells a similar story: the Intel part produces 62.40 GPixel/s against the AMD part's 11.20 GPixel/s, a 5.6x advantage. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the Intel unit at 124.8 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s on the AMD side.

The absence of head-to-head scores means these figures stand as the only quantitative comparison available. Neither part has an average benchmark score recorded, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. That percentile value is identical for both, which is curious given the large specification gap. It may indicate that the database's percentile field does not yet reflect the full performance envelope of either integrated GPU, or that the field is populated from a different scoring scale than the raw compute numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs come from different design philosophies and process generations. The AMD Radeon 820M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, using a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip is designated Krackan Point 2, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses Xe2-LPG architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with the Lunar Lake chip and Arc Graphics-M generation designation.

Process node difference is meaningful: 4 nm versus 3 nm gives Intel a density and power efficiency advantage at the transistor level. The die size for the Intel part is recorded as 172 mm², while the AMD die size is unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both, so no direct comparison of transistor density is possible from the database.

The shading unit count diverges sharply. AMD fields 128 shading units, while Intel provides 1024. Texture mapping units number 8 on the AMD side versus 64 on Intel. Render output units are 4 for AMD and 32 for Intel. Ray tracing cores show 2 for AMD and 8 for Intel. The Intel part has an 8x advantage in shading units, an 8x advantage in TMUs, an 8x advantage in ROPs, and a 4x advantage in ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD part runs a base clock of 400 MHz with a boost of 2800 MHz. The Intel part starts lower at 300 MHz base but boosts to only 1950 MHz. Despite the lower boost clock, Intel's massive shading unit count overwhelms AMD's higher frequency. The FP32 result confirms this: Intel's 3.994 TFLOPS comes from 1024 units at a modest boost clock, while AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS comes from 128 units at a much higher boost clock.

Memory architecture is identical in type: both use System Shared memory with the bus width and bandwidth listed as System Dependent. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The FP16 capability differs in ratio: AMD offers FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while Intel offers 7.987 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. That means Intel's FP16 throughput is double its FP32, while AMD's is equal.

Power envelopes differ substantially. The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile is rated at 37 W TDP. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8 as its bus interface, while the Intel part lists IGP as its bus interface, suggesting a different integration path. AMD has no power connectors listed; Intel's power connectors field is null.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part was released on 2025-02-28, while the Intel part came earlier on 2024-09-23. Both are marked as Active in production status. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and Intel's predecessor is HD Graphics-M. Neither has a successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile reaches 3.994 TFLOPS, which is 5.6x the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. This comes from Intel's 1024 shading units versus AMD's 128, despite Intel's lower boost clock of 1950 MHz versus AMD's 2800 MHz.

Q: How do the ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: Intel provides 8 ray tracing cores, while AMD provides 2. That is a 4x advantage for Intel in ray tracing hardware. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing requirements for that API level.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile is rated at 37 W TDP. Intel uses more than double the power budget, which correlates with its larger shading unit count and higher throughput.

Q: Are the memory systems different?

A: No, both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth and bus width. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The memory type is also System Shared for both.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller process node?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while AMD uses 4 nm TSMC. Intel's smaller node contributes to its ability to pack 1024 shading units into a 172 mm² die, though AMD's die size is not recorded.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. API compatibility is identical, so software support does not differentiate them.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two entries:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 (AMD) versus Xe2-LPG (Intel)
• Process Node: 4 nm (AMD) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Die Size: Unknown (AMD) versus 172 mm² (Intel)
• Base Clock: 400 MHz (AMD) versus 300 MHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 2800 MHz (AMD) versus 1950 MHz (Intel)
• Shading Units: 128 (AMD) versus 1024 (Intel)
• TMUs: 8 (AMD) versus 64 (Intel)
• ROPs: 4 (AMD) versus 32 (Intel)
• Ray Tracing Cores: 2 (AMD) versus 8 (Intel)
• Pixel Rate: 11.20 GPixel/s (AMD) versus 62.40 GPixel/s (Intel)
• Texture Rate: 22.40 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 124.8 GTexel/s (Intel)
• FP32: 716.8 GFLOPS (AMD) versus 3.994 TFLOPS (Intel)
• FP16: 716.8 GFLOPS, 1:1 ratio (AMD) versus 7.987 TFLOPS, 2:1 ratio (Intel)
• TDP: 15 W (AMD) versus 37 W (Intel)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (AMD) versus IGP (Intel)
• Power Connectors: None (AMD) versus null (Intel)
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 (AMD) versus 2024-09-23 (Intel)
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP (AMD) versus HD Graphics-M (Intel)
• Chip: Krackan Point 2 (AMD) versus Lunar Lake (Intel)
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) versus Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake)

The fields that match include memory size/type/bus width/bandwidth (all System Shared or System Dependent), slot width (IGP for both), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent for both), and all API versions (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins decisively on every raw compute metric recorded in the database. It holds a 5.6x advantage in FP32 throughput, a 5.6x advantage in pixel rate, and a 5.6x advantage in texture rate. The shading unit count is 8x higher, the TMU count is 8x higher, the ROP count is 8x higher, and the ray tracing core count is 4x higher. For any workload that scales with shading units, texture filtering, or rasterization, the Intel part dominates.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on power efficiency in a strict TDP sense. At 15 W versus 37 W, AMD uses less than half the power budget. The FP32 per watt ratio favors AMD: 716.8 GFLOPS divided by 15 W equals approximately 47.8 GFLOPS per watt, while Intel's 3.994 TFLOPS divided by 37 W equals approximately 107.9 GFLOPS per watt. That calculation shows Intel still leads in efficiency, but the absolute power draw is lower for AMD. For thermally constrained ultraportable designs, the AMD part's 15 W envelope fits a narrower power budget.

The AMD part also has a higher boost clock at 2800 MHz versus 1950 MHz. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or that benefit from higher clock rates on a smaller number of units, the AMD part could respond faster per individual unit, though the overall throughput advantage remains with Intel.

The release date difference matters for platform choices: Intel launched on 2024-09-23, while AMD launched on 2025-02-28. Systems built around the Intel Lunar Lake platform have been available longer. The AMD Krackan Point 2 platform is newer, which may mean fresher design wins but shorter market validation time.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Arc 140V Mobile is the substantially more capable GPU in every measured compute category. The 8x shading unit advantage, the 5.6x FP32 throughput lead, and the 4x ray tracing core advantage establish a clear performance hierarchy. Any application that leverages parallel shading, texture work, or rasterization will favor Intel by a wide margin.

The AMD Radeon 820M's case rests on its 15 W TDP, which is less than half of Intel's 37 W. For designs where power draw is the primary constraint, the AMD part fits into a smaller thermal envelope. Its higher boost clock of 2800 MHz suggests it can reach high frequencies when power allows, but the limited shading unit count caps its absolute output.

Both GPUs target the integrated graphics segment, use System Shared memory, and support identical API levels. Neither has a dedicated VRAM allocation, and both rely on the host system's memory bandwidth. The practical performance ceiling for both is therefore tied to the system's memory configuration, which the database records as System Dependent.

For users who prioritize graphics performance in a mobile integrated GPU, the Intel Arc 140V Mobile is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. For users who need the lowest possible power draw and can accept lower compute throughput, the AMD Radeon 820M offers a 15 W solution with a newer release date. The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, so real-world validation remains absent, but the architectural numbers leave little ambiguity about the relative compute ceiling.

The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs against all GPUs in the database suggests they occupy a similar tier in the overall performance distribution, despite the large internal gap. That may reflect the database's percentile methodology or the fact that both are integrated parts competing in a field dominated by discrete GPUs. Either way, the direct comparison within this pair is one-sided in favor of Intel on every quantitative metric except TDP and boost clock.