AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier, but no shared benchmark workloads have been logged to produce a direct score comparison. The absence of head-to-head data means the comparison must rely on architectural throughput figures and feature sets rather than measured application results.

Looking at the raw computational throughput, the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile holds a clear lead in raw math. The Intel part delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. That places the Intel GPU at roughly 93% higher FP32 throughput, a substantial margin. The texture rate follows the same pattern: Intel reaches 43.20 GTexel/s against AMD's 22.40 GTexel/s, roughly 93% higher. Pixel rate favors Intel as well, at 14.40 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, a 29% advantage.

The FP16 comparison shifts the picture further in Intel's favor. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile achieves 2.765 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M achieves 716.8 GFLOPS. Intel's FP16 rate is nearly four times higher, reflecting its 2:1 FP16 execution ratio, whereas AMD runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. For workloads that leverage half-precision math, the Intel part is decisively faster.

However, the AMD Radeon 820M counters with a significantly higher boost clock. AMD's boost reaches 2800 MHz, while Intel's boost tops out at 1800 MHz. That 1000 MHz gap, roughly 56% higher, helps AMD close some of the architectural deficit, though not enough to overcome Intel's larger execution resource count. The base clocks also differ: AMD starts at 400 MHz, Intel at 300 MHz.

The RT core count is another differentiator. The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores at all. For ray-traced workloads, AMD has a hardware path that Intel lacks entirely, though the database records no benchmark scores to quantify the impact.

Where Each One Wins

For raw computational throughput, particularly FP32 and FP16 math, the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is the stronger part. The 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs give it a wide resource lead over the AMD Radeon 820M's 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Applications that scale with shader count, such as modern game engines, GPU compute tasks, and rendering workloads, will favor Intel based on the recorded throughput figures.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on clock speed and ray tracing capability. Its 2800 MHz boost clock is substantially higher than Intel's 1800 MHz, which helps in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded GPU workloads that respond well to clock frequency. The presence of 2 ray tracing cores gives AMD a feature advantage for games or applications that use hardware-accelerated ray tracing, assuming software support exists.

Memory behavior is similar for both, since both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. Neither GPU has dedicated VRAM, so performance will depend heavily on the host system's memory configuration. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus connection, which means system-level integration differs but the database provides no performance metrics to compare the two approaches.

The TDP figures point to different design targets. AMD's 15 W TDP makes it a lower-power integrated GPU, while Intel's 28 W TDP allows for higher sustained throughput at the cost of more power draw. In thermally constrained thin-and-light laptops, the AMD part may sustain its clocks more easily, but the database does not record sustained clock behavior or thermal throttling data.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation and uses the Krackan Point 2 chip. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation built on the Meteor Lake chip. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm gives AMD a density and efficiency advantage, which partially explains how AMD achieves a higher boost clock at lower TDP.

The shading unit counts reveal a major architectural difference. AMD implements 128 shading units, while Intel implements 384. That 3:1 ratio in shader count is the primary reason Intel's FP32 throughput is nearly double despite a lower clock. AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture appears to rely on higher clocks and efficiency, while Intel's Xe-LPG relies on wider execution.

Ray tracing support differs entirely. AMD includes 2 RT cores, Intel lists none. This means the AMD part has dedicated hardware for ray intersection calculations, while Intel would need to handle ray tracing through compute shaders if supported at all. The database records no RT-specific benchmarks, so the real-world difference remains unquantified.

The FP16 execution ratio also differs. AMD runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, meaning it processes half-precision and full-precision math at the same rate. Intel runs FP16 at 2:1, processing twice as many half-precision operations per cycle. This explains the large FP16 gap: Intel's 2.765 TFLOPS versus AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 feature level includes additional capabilities such as mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which 12_1 does not fully cover. OpenGL support matches at 4.6 for both, and Vulkan support matches at 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 1800 MHz |

| Shading Units | 128 | 384 |

| TMUs | 8 | 24 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 2 | None |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 1,382.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 14.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 43.20 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2023-12-13 |

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

The release dates show the AMD part launched after the Intel part, with AMD released on February 28, 2025, and Intel on December 13, 2023. Both remain in active production. The AMD part succeeds the Navi II IGP, while the Intel part succeeds HD Graphics-M. Neither part has a recorded successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 93% higher than the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 820M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile boosts to 1800 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 1000 MHz higher.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a TDP of 28 W. The AMD part draws less power, though the database does not record efficiency metrics.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX feature level?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 feature level includes additional capabilities.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has 384 shading units, three times more than the AMD Radeon 820M's 128 shading units.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is the stronger part for raw computational throughput. Its FP32 performance of 1,382.4 GFLOPS and FP16 performance of 2.765 TFLOPS put it well ahead of the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS in both formats. The 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs give Intel a wide execution resource advantage that clock speed alone cannot close. For any workload that scales with shader count, FP32 math, or FP16 math, the Intel part is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon 820M has its own advantages. The 2800 MHz boost clock is substantially higher, and the 2 ray tracing cores provide hardware support that Intel lacks. The 15 W TDP makes it a lower-power option, which may matter in thermally constrained laptops. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature level also gives AMD a more capable feature set for modern graphics APIs. The 4 nm TSMC process indicates a denser, more efficient design.

For a user prioritizing maximum GPU compute in an integrated part, the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is the better choice. For a user prioritizing ray tracing support, lower power draw, and higher clock speeds, the AMD Radeon 820M is the better fit. The database records no direct benchmark scores, so these conclusions rest on the architectural throughput figures and feature lists. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile overall, indicating they are mid-pack parts, but their strengths lie in different areas.