AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 820M compare to the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU in raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU delivers 1.946 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. The Arc part also provides 3.891 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput, while the Radeon offers 716.8 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two integrated GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU uses a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The Intel chip integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the AMD chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fillrate?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU reaches 30.40 GPixel/s, more than double the AMD Radeon 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: Intel at 60.80 GTexel/s versus AMD at 22.40 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part also includes 2 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part does not list any RT cores, though both claim DirectX 12 Ultimate compatibility.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU is rated at 65 W. Both are classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated power connectors.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU perform in the recorded benchmark?

A: The only benchmark entry in the database is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scores 733. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 3, and its average benchmark score matches that 733 figure.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile family, and uses the Krackan Point 2 chip. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU employs the Xe-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process also at TSMC, and comes from the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation using the Arrow Lake-S chip.

The compute configuration differs dramatically. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This fourfold difference in shading units and TMUs directly accounts for the large gap in texture and pixel throughput.

Ray tracing support also separates the two. The Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated RT cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU lists no RT cores in the database, even though both parts advertise DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Radeon 820M has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2800 MHz boost clock. The Intel part starts at 300 MHz base and boosts to 1900 MHz. Despite the lower boost frequency, the Intel GPU's much wider execution resource pool produces higher absolute throughput.

The Intel chip's transistor data is recorded: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, giving a density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown. The Intel part also uses a Ring Bus interface, while the AMD part connects via PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 1.946 TFLOPS is roughly 2.7 times the Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. Pixel rate favors Intel by a factor of 2.7 (30.40 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s), and texture rate favors Intel by the same margin (60.80 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s). For any workload that scales with shading units, TMUs, or ROPs, the Intel part holds a clear advantage.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on efficiency metrics. Its 15 W TDP is less than a quarter of the Intel part's 65 W TDP, while still providing a functional IGP for portable devices. The AMD part also has a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 1900 MHz), and it includes ray tracing cores that the Intel part lacks. For systems where power draw is the primary constraint, the Radeon delivers graphics capability at a fraction of the power envelope.

The recorded benchmark data only covers the Intel part. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scores 733, which places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU, both scoring 733 with a 0% delta, meaning the 64EU variant shows no measurable performance gain over the smaller EU configurations in that specific test. The AMD Radeon 820M has no benchmark entries and no nearest rivals recorded, so direct empirical comparison is not possible from the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 243 mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Shading Units | 128 | 512 |

| TMUs | 8 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 2 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 60.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 1.946 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 3.891 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| 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 |

| Transistor Density | null | 73.3M / mm² |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU. The wins counter shows 0 wins for each part. However, the Intel part has one standalone benchmark record, and the specification-derived throughput figures allow for a comparative analysis.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU scores 733. This places it at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that its absolute performance level is low in the broader GPU landscape. The nearest rivals confirm this positioning: the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 24EU both score 733 with 0% delta, meaning the 64EU configuration provides no advantage over the smaller variants in this workload. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, just 1.4% behind the Intel part, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, putting the Intel part 2.4% behind that older discrete GPU.

The compute specifications tell a clearer story about the gap between the two IGPs. The Intel part's FP32 throughput of 1.946 TFLOPS is 2.71 times the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS. Pixel rate comparison shows Intel at 30.40 GPixel/s versus AMD at 11.20 GPixel/s, a 2.71x difference. Texture rate mirrors this: 60.80 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, again 2.71x. These ratios are consistent because the Intel part has exactly four times the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, but the AMD part boosts to a higher clock frequency, which partially compensates for the narrower execution width.

The FP16 ratio differs from FP32. The Intel part delivers 3.891 TFLOPS at FP16 with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning it can double its throughput on half-precision workloads. The AMD part delivers 716.8 GFLOPS at FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no such acceleration exists. For applications that use FP16 math, the Intel part's advantage widens to 5.43x.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 820M targets minimal power consumption with a 15 W TDP, a 400 MHz base clock, and a 2800 MHz boost clock. Its 128 shading units and 4 ROPs provide modest throughput, and its 2 RT cores add ray tracing capability that the Intel part lacks. The release date of 2025-02-28 places it as a newer product.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU targets higher absolute performance within an integrated package. Its 65 W TDP, 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs produce roughly 2.7 times the FP32, pixel, and texture throughput of the AMD part. The single recorded benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 confirms functional capability, though the 3rd percentile ranking shows it sits near the bottom of the overall GPU performance distribution.

For portable devices where power draw is critical, the AMD Radeon 820M's 15 W envelope and ray tracing support make it the appropriate choice. For systems that can accommodate 65 W and need higher compute throughput, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU delivers more than double the raw performance in most measured categories. The absence of benchmark data for the AMD part and the absence of direct head-to-head tests means the comparison rests primarily on specification analysis, but those specifications consistently favor the Intel part in performance and the AMD part in efficiency.