AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU. For the AMD Radeon 820M, no benchmark scores are recorded, and no nearest rival entries exist. For the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, exactly one benchmark score is available: 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This places the Intel part in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. The lack of a comparable score for the AMD part means the head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the limited performance context provided by the Intel part's nearest rivals.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, both with an identical average score of 733 points, a delta of 0 percent. This indicates that within the Intel Arc Graphics family, the 32EU configuration and the 24EU and 64EU configurations produce the same measured result in this specific test, despite their differing execution unit counts. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M trails by 1.4 percent with a score of 723 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M leads by 2.4 percent with 751 points. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU therefore sits in a narrow performance band, roughly between the older AMD and NVIDIA mobile parts, with the measured delta spanning only 3.8 percentage points from the slowest to the fastest of the four entries.

Because the AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, no wins can be attributed to either side in a measured head-to-head sense. The wins counter in the database shows zero for both products. The only quantitative performance evidence available belongs to the Intel part, and that evidence places it at the low end of the overall GPU distribution, in the 3rd percentile. The AMD part's percentile is listed as 50, but without an average benchmark score, that percentile cannot be tied to any specific measured workload. This discrepancy reinforces that the two products are not directly comparable through recorded test results in the current database state.

The compute specifications offer a partial substitute for missing benchmark data. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. That is a 39.3 percent advantage for the Intel part in raw single-precision floating-point math. In FP16, the gap widens: the Intel part reaches 1.997 TFLOPS against the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS, a 178.6 percent advantage, because the Intel architecture runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio while the AMD part runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel throughput follows the same pattern, with the Intel part at 15.60 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a 39.3 percent lead. Texture throughput shows 31.20 GTexel/s for Intel versus 22.40 GTexel/s for AMD, again a 39.3 percent lead. These consistent ratios reflect the fact that the Intel part has exactly double the shading units, texture mapping units, and raster output units of the AMD part: 256 versus 128 shading units, 16 versus 8 TMUs, and 8 versus 4 ROPs.

Clock speeds complicate the raw unit-count comparison. The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU boosts to 1950 MHz. The AMD part's base clock is 400 MHz versus 300 MHz for the Intel part. The higher boost clock on the AMD side partially offsets its lower unit counts, but the arithmetic shows the Intel part still holds the throughput lead in every measured rate category. The AMD part's boost clock is 43.6 percent higher than the Intel part's boost clock, yet the Intel part's doubling of execution resources is enough to overcome that frequency deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in every category where the database records a measurable specification. It has a higher FP32 throughput at 998.4 GFLOPS, a higher FP16 throughput at 1.997 TFLOPS, a higher pixel rate at 15.60 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 31.20 GTexel/s. It also has twice the shading units, twice the TMUs, and twice the ROPs. For any workload that scales with raw shader throughput, texture filtering, or rasterization, the recorded data favors the Intel part.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in clock speed. Its base clock of 400 MHz and boost clock of 2800 MHz both exceed the Intel part's 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The database also lists the AMD part as having 2 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part has no ray tracing cores listed. For workloads that use ray tracing acceleration, the AMD part has a hardware feature the Intel part lacks in the recorded specifications. The AMD part is also built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, which supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not halve FP16 throughput relative to FP32, but the absolute FP16 number still trails the Intel part.

The power envelope is another differentiator. The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is rated at 65 W TDP. The AMD part draws only 23.1 percent of the Intel part's power budget while delivering 71.8 percent of its FP32 throughput, 35.9 percent of its FP16 throughput, 71.8 percent of its pixel rate, and 71.8 percent of its texture rate. In efficiency terms, the AMD part delivers more performance per watt in FP32, FP16, pixel, and texture throughput. The Intel part's advantages in absolute throughput come at a more than fourfold increase in TDP.

The process node also favors the AMD part in terms of manufacturing scale. The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The Intel part's chip, Arrow Lake-S, contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, with a transistor density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible. The smaller process node on the Intel side does not translate into a lower power draw in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The chip is designated Krackan Point 2. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Arrow Lake, with the chip designated Arrow Lake-S. The two architectures represent different design philosophies: RDNA 3.5 is AMD's current integrated graphics architecture, while Xe-LPG is Intel's discrete-style graphics architecture scaled down for integrated use.

The execution resource counts differ by a factor of two across the board. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part includes 2 ray tracing cores; the Intel part lists none. Neither part lists tensor cores. The Intel part's shading units are organized into 32 execution units, as the name Arc Graphics 32EU indicates, while the AMD part's 128 shading units are organized into the RDNA 3.5 compute unit layout.

Memory access is identical in type: both use System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated video memory. The bus interfaces differ: the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The display outputs also differ: the AMD part is Portable Device Dependent, meaning the system integrator determines the ports, while the Intel part is Motherboard Dependent, reflecting its desktop Arrow Lake-S integration.

API support is identical between the two parts. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part's FP16 ratio is 2:1, meaning it can issue two FP16 operations per FP32 operation, while the AMD part's FP16 ratio is 1:1, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput. The Intel part's FP16 figure of 1.997 TFLOPS is more than double its FP32 figure of 998.4 GFLOPS, confirming the 2:1 ratio. The AMD part's FP16 and FP32 figures are both 716.8 GFLOPS, confirming the 1:1 ratio.

The power delivery and physical requirements differ substantially. The AMD part is rated at 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Intel part is rated at 65 W TDP, and its power connector requirement is listed as null in the database. Both are IGPs, meaning they occupy no expansion slot and have no length, height, or width dimensions recorded. The AMD part's production status is Active, with a release date of February 28, 2025. The Intel part's production status is also Active, with a release date of October 23, 2024. The AMD part's predecessor is the Navi II IGP, while the Intel part's predecessor is the HD Graphics-M. Neither part has a recorded successor or a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part leads by 39.3 percent.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 820M have any advantage in the recorded data?

A: The AMD part has a higher base clock (400 MHz versus 300 MHz), a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 1950 MHz), and 2 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores. The AMD part also has a much lower TDP at 15 W versus 65 W.

Q: How do the two compare in FP16 throughput?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU reaches 1.997 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD Radeon 820M reaches 716.8 GFLOPS using a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part leads by 178.6 percent.

Q: What benchmark score is recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The Intel part scores 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU at 733 points each, the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723 points, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M at 751 points.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the AMD Radeon 820M?

A: The database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 820M. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it has no nearest rival entries. Its percentile is listed as 50, but this is not tied to any measured score.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W and no power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a TDP of 65 W, and its power connector requirement is not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU for absolute graphics throughput. It leads in FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate, with 998.4 GFLOPS, 1.997 TFLOPS, 15.60 GPixel/s, and 31.20 GTexel/s respectively. Its 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs double the AMD part's execution resources. The Intel part also has the only measured benchmark score in the comparison, 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it in the 3rd percentile overall and within 2.4 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M.

The AMD Radeon 820M is the efficiency choice. Its 15 W TDP is 23.1 percent of the Intel part's 65 W TDP, yet it delivers 71.8 percent of the Intel part's FP32, pixel, and texture throughput. Its 2800 MHz boost clock is 43.6 percent higher than the Intel part's 1950 MHz boost clock. It also provides 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel part's recorded specifications. For systems constrained by power budgets, particularly portable devices, the AMD part offers most of the Intel part's throughput at a fraction of the power draw.

The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process versus the AMD part's 4 nm process, and its Arrow Lake-S chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD part's transistor count and die size are unknown, so no efficiency comparison at the silicon level is possible. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface, while the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The choice depends on the priority. For raw throughput and the only recorded benchmark result, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is the stronger part. For power efficiency, clock speed, and ray tracing hardware, the AMD Radeon 820M holds the advantages in the recorded data. The AMD part's release date of February 28, 2025 is later than the Intel part's October 23, 2024. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded, and neither has a successor listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | Intel Arc Graphics 32EU |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe-LPG |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) |

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 243 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 73.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 1950 MHz |

| Shading Units | 128 | 256 |

| TMUs | 8 | 16 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 2 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 15.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 31.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 998.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2024-10-23 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | HD Graphics-M |

| Percentile | 50 | 3 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 0 | 733 |