AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc A580?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built as a Krackan Point 2 integrated graphics processor (IGP) for the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. The Intel Arc A580 uses the Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, with the DG2-512 chip from the Alchemist (Arc 5) generation. The 820M is an IGP with no dedicated memory, while the A580 is a dual-slot discrete card with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How do the shading resources compare between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A580 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The A580 also carries 24 ray tracing cores versus 2 on the 820M. The A580's FP32 throughput is 12.29 TFLOPS, while the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each product?

A: The Intel Arc A580 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory, with its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The A580's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Which product has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Arc A580 sits at the 87th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 57756. The AMD Radeon 820M has a percentile ranking of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmark entries in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A580 has a TDP of 175 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and the database lists a suggested PSU of 450 W. The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed because it is an integrated part.

Q: Which API features do both GPUs support?

A: Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs differ: the 820M's outputs are portable device dependent, while the A580 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to completely different product categories despite sharing the same API feature set. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor built on the Krackan Point 2 chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. Its predecessor is the Navi II IGP. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, with memory handled entirely through the system.

The Intel Arc A580 is a discrete dual-slot graphics card built on the DG2-512 chip with Xe-HPG architecture. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, using 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². It belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 5) generation, succeeds Xe Graphics, and is followed by Battlemage. The A580 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz.

The compute resource gap is substantial. The A580 provides 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the 820M provides 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 24 RT cores on the A580 versus 2 on the 820M. The FP16 throughput also differs in ratio: the 820M runs FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the A580 reaches 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio to its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The 820M relies on system shared memory, making its bandwidth and bus width dependent on the host platform. The A580 has dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock running at 16 Gbps effective.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The 820M connects through PCIe 4.0 x8, while the A580 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Power delivery separates them further: the 820M is a 15 W IGP with no power connectors, while the A580 is a 175 W card requiring two 8-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A580 wins in every measurable performance category recorded in the database. It holds the 87th percentile among all GPUs, while the 820M sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark scores recorded. The A580's average benchmark score of 57756 comes from three recorded tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2229, Geekbench OpenCL at 91657, and Geekbench Vulkan at 79381. The 820M has no recorded benchmark entries, so its average score is 0.

The A580 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 8 GB GDDR6 configuration with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is a fully dedicated memory subsystem, whereas the 820M depends on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This makes the A580 suitable for workloads that demand sustained memory throughput, such as high-resolution textures or compute tasks with large working sets.

The 820M's advantages are different in nature. It operates at 15 W with no external power connectors, which makes it suitable for portable devices where power draw and cooling are constrained. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, indicating flexibility in mobile form factors. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is higher than the A580's 2000 MHz boost, though this does not compensate for the massive difference in shading resources.

The A580 wins on raw geometry and pixel throughput. Its pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s on the 820M, and its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. For rasterization-heavy workloads, the A580's 96 ROPs and 192 TMUs provide a structural advantage that the 820M cannot match.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ across nearly every field. The process nodes are 4 nm for the AMD Radeon 820M and 6 nm for the Intel Arc A580, both fabricated at TSMC. The 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown, while the A580 lists 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The 820M has a lower base clock of 400 MHz versus 1700 MHz on the A580, but a higher boost clock of 2800 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Neither product lists a game clock.

Memory specifications show the largest gap. The 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated size. The A580 has 8 GB GDDR6, a 256-bit bus, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a 2000 MHz memory clock with 16 Gbps effective speed.

Compute unit counts are dramatically different. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 RT cores. The A580 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 24 RT cores. Neither product lists tensor cores.

Throughput figures follow the hardware counts. The 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 and 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The A580 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s on the 820M versus 192.0 GPixel/s on the A580, and texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications differ completely. The 820M is an IGP with 15 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no dimensions recorded. The A580 is a dual-slot card with 175 W TDP, two 8-pin connectors, a 450 W suggested PSU, and no dimensions recorded.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 on the 820M and PCIe 4.0 x16 on the A580. Display outputs are portable device dependent on the 820M, while the A580 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0.

Release dates and production status also differ. The 820M was released on 2025-02-28 and is marked Active, with no successor. The A580 was released on 2023-10-09, is marked Active, and has Battlemage as its successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc A580. The wins count is 0 for the 820M and 0 for the A580 in the head-to-head field. However, the A580 has standalone benchmark results that can be compared against the 820M's lack of recorded scores.

The A580's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2229. This test exercises DirectX 12 rendering workloads, and the A580 completes it with a measurable result. The 820M has no equivalent entry in the database, so no direct comparison is possible from recorded data.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A580 scores 91657. This measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads. The A580's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 throughput provides the raw compute capacity for this result. The 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 is recorded, but no corresponding Geekbench OpenCL score exists for it.

The A580's Geekbench Vulkan score is 79381. Vulkan performance depends on both the driver and the hardware's ability to handle draw calls and compute dispatches. The A580's 3072 shading units and 24 RT cores contribute to this result. The 820M supports Vulkan 1.4 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark score.

The A580's average benchmark score of 57756 places it near several rivals in the database. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM has an average score of 58085, which is 0.6% above the A580. The Intel Arc A570M scores 58239, 0.8% above. The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT scores 58392, 1.1% above. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE scores 57367, which is 0.7% below the A580. These deltas place the A580 in a tight performance band around the 57756 average.

The 820M has no nearest rivals listed and no average benchmark score to compare. Its percentile ranking of 50 indicates a mid-pack position in the overall database, but without recorded scores, the ranking cannot be tied to specific benchmark results.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear separation between these two products. The Intel Arc A580 is a discrete graphics card with 3072 shading units, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. Its average benchmark score of 57756 and 87th percentile ranking place it among mid-range discrete GPUs, with nearest rivals within roughly 1% of its score in both directions.

The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated GPU with 128 shading units, system shared memory, and 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput. It has no recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. Its 15 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a design focused on low-power mobile integration rather than peak performance.

For workloads that require rendering, compute, or memory bandwidth, the A580 is the only option with recorded performance data. Its three benchmark scores provide concrete evidence of its capabilities across DirectX 12, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The 820M offers no comparable measurements in the database.

For systems where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints, the 820M's 15 W TDP and IGP form factor present a clear advantage. It requires no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and its display outputs adapt to the portable device it is integrated into.

The choice between the two depends on whether the workload demands discrete performance or integrated efficiency. The A580 delivers recorded, benchmarked performance at 175 W with dual-slot cooling and two 8-pin connectors. The 820M delivers a 50th percentile ranking with no recorded benchmarks, operating within a 15 W envelope. The data does not support a scenario where the 820M outperforms the A580 in any measured category.