AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics in mobile systems, with the data showing clear differences in raw computational capacity, architectural design, and feature support. The Radeon 820M, built on RDNA 3.5, targets efficiency with a modest execution footprint, while the Arc 64EU leverages Intel’s Xe-LPG architecture to deliver substantially higher throughput in several key metrics. Both are active production parts, though they hail from different release windows and process nodes, which shapes their respective performance profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant gap between the two GPUs appears in shading throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 150% higher than the AMD Radeon 820M’s 716.8 GFLOPS. This translates directly to a 2.5x advantage in raw single-precision arithmetic, a factor that influences most modern game and compute workloads that rely on shader execution. The delta is even more pronounced in FP16 operations: the Arc 64EU reaches 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Radeon 820M manages only 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This gives Intel a 5x lead in half-precision throughput, a metric increasingly relevant for AI inference and media processing tasks that leverage mixed-precision execution.

Texture and pixel fill rates follow a similar pattern. The Arc 64EU achieves 56.00 GTexel/s, exactly 2.5x the Radeon 820M’s 22.40 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput shows a 2.5x advantage as well, with Intel at 28.00 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 11.20 GPixel/s. These ratios align perfectly with the shading unit counts, suggesting that both architectures scale linearly with their execution resources: the Arc 64EU employs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon 820M uses 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Clock speeds do not offset this gap. The Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, substantially higher than the Arc 64EU’s 1750 MHz boost, yet the Intel part still dominates due to its larger execution width.

Ray tracing capability presents a more nuanced comparison. The Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated RT cores, whereas the Arc 64EU lists no ray tracing units in the recorded data. This means AMD holds a structural advantage for DirectX Raytracing workloads, despite its lower raw compute. However, the Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), the same feature level as the Radeon 820M, so both can execute ray-traced titles; the Radeon’s dedicated hardware may provide dedicated acceleration paths, while Intel would rely on compute-based traversal.

Memory bandwidth is system dependent for both parts, as they use shared system memory with no dedicated VRAM. Neither GPU specifies a fixed bus width or capacity, making memory performance entirely contingent on the host platform’s RAM configuration. This equalizes the memory subsystem comparison, though the Arc 64EU’s higher TDP of 65 W versus the Radeon 820M’s 15 W suggests Intel’s part may be paired with more robust power delivery and potentially faster memory controllers in designed systems.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Applications that stress FP32 shader throughput, such as 3D rendering, video encoding filters, or physics simulations, will benefit from the 2.5x raw compute advantage. The 5x FP16 lead further positions Intel for workloads that use half-precision, including certain machine learning inference models or image processing pipelines that accept reduced precision. Similarly, texture-heavy scenes with high polygon counts or detailed material maps will favor the Arc 64EU, as its 32 TMUs can process 56.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 22.40 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in scenarios where its architectural features matter more than sheer throughput. The presence of 2 RT cores gives it a functional advantage for ray-traced effects, even if the overall rendering performance is lower. Additionally, the Radeon 820M’s higher boost clock of 2800 MHz suggests better single-threaded execution efficiency per shading unit, which could translate to smoother frame pacing in lightly threaded workloads that do not fully saturate all execution units. Its 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for ultraportable designs where thermal and power constraints dominate, whereas the Arc 64EU’s 65 W TDP implies a larger cooling solution and higher power draw.

For legacy DirectX titles, the Radeon 820M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support matches the Arc 64EU’s, so API-level compatibility is not a differentiator. OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 are identical on both. The Intel part’s older release date (December 2023) versus AMD’s February 2025 does not affect performance, but it may influence driver maturity; the database does not include driver-specific metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different architectural philosophies. AMD’s Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. This is a refined iteration of RDNA 3, focusing on power efficiency and area reduction. The chip is labeled “Krackan Point 2,” which aligns with AMD’s integrated graphics strategy of pairing small GPU dies with APU compute tiles. The RDNA 3.5 architecture retains a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning half-precision operations do not receive extra throughput; instead, the same datapath processes both formats. This simplifies the design and saves die area, but it sacrifices FP16 performance compared to architectures that double the rate.

Intel’s Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses Xe-LPG, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. The “64EU” designation refers to 64 execution units, each containing a fixed number of shading units, totaling 512. Xe-LPG is derived from Intel’s discrete Arc gaming architecture but optimized for integrated use in Meteor Lake. It features a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, doubling half-precision throughput to 3.584 TFLOPS. This suggests vector units that can pack two FP16 operations per clock, a common technique for AI and media workloads. The Arc 64EU also uses a ring bus interconnect, whereas the Radeon 820M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The ring bus is typical for integrated parts that share memory with the CPU, while PCIe 4.0 x8 indicates a more discrete-like interface, though both ultimately access system memory.

Ray tracing is a key architectural split. The Radeon 820M’s 2 RT cores are dedicated hardware blocks for bounding volume hierarchy traversal and ray intersection tests. The Arc 64EU has no listed RT cores, meaning any ray tracing must be handled via general-purpose shaders. This does not preclude ray tracing, but it likely reduces efficiency for complex scenes. The Radeon’s RT implementation is part of the RDNA 3.5 generation, which also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, matching the Arc 64EU’s feature set.

The process node difference is stark: 4 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). This gives AMD a theoretical density and power advantage, but the Arc 64EU compensates with a much larger execution footprint. The Radeon 820M’s 128 shading units are a fraction of Intel’s 512, which explains the performance gap despite AMD’s higher clock speed and newer node.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several direct contrasts between the two parts. The Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Arc 64EU operates at 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost. AMD’s clocks are 33% higher at base and 60% higher at boost, yet Intel’s wider architecture overcomes this. Shading units differ by 4x: 128 versus 512. TMUs differ by 4x: 8 versus 32. ROPs differ by 4x: 4 versus 16. These ratios are consistent, indicating that Intel scaled all execution resources uniformly.

FP32 performance is 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD and 1.792 TFLOPS for Intel, a 2.5x difference that matches the shading unit ratio. FP16 performance is 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD and 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, a 5x difference due to the different FP16 modes. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s, both 2.5x deltas.

TDP is a major differentiator: 15 W for the Radeon 820M versus 65 W for the Arc 64EU. This 50 W gap has implications for system design, thermal management, and battery life, though the database does not record performance per watt. Both are IGP (integrated graphics) with no dedicated power connectors, but the Arc 64EU’s higher TDP suggests it may be configured with active cooling or larger thermal solutions in laptops.

Bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus Ring Bus for Intel. The PCIe interface implies the Radeon 820M can be used in a more modular fashion, potentially with discrete memory paths, while the Ring Bus ties Intel’s GPU directly to the CPU’s memory fabric. Memory size, type, and bus width are listed as “System Shared” for both, with bandwidth recorded as “System Dependent,” so no numerical comparison is possible.

Release dates are distinct: the Arc 64EU launched on December 13, 2023, while the Radeon 820M launched on February 28, 2025. The Radeon’s predecessor is listed as “Navi II IGP,” and Intel’s predecessor is “HD Graphics-M,” but no successor exists for either. Both support DirectX 12 (12_2 for AMD, 12_1 for Intel), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX version difference is minor: 12_2 includes additional features like DirectX Raytracing 1.1 and mesh shaders, which the Radeon 820M supports, while the Arc 64EU is limited to 12_1, which lacks some of these advanced features, though both support basic ray tracing via the API.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.584 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the AMD Radeon 820M’s 716.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. Intel leads by 2.5x in FP32 and 5x in FP16.

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

A: Yes, the Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated RT cores. The Intel Arc 64EU has no listed RT cores, so it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Radeon 820M has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, while the Arc 64EU has a 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost. AMD’s clocks are higher by 100 MHz at base and 1050 MHz at boost.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 64EU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Intel has 4x more of each.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Arc 64EU has a TDP of 65 W. This is a 50 W difference, indicating Intel’s part consumes significantly more power.

Q: What are the API versions supported by each?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Arc 64EU supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 12_2 level adds features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: Are the memory configurations different?

A: Both GPUs use system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. Memory size, type, and bus width are listed as “System Shared” for both, and bandwidth is “System Dependent,” so no fixed difference exists in the recorded data.