AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc Pro A60M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, one as an integrated processor and the other as a professional-grade discrete solution. The database records show both are currently active production parts, with the AMD Radeon 820M released on February 28, 2025, and the Intel Arc Pro A60M released earlier on June 5, 2023. Both share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, yet their underlying specifications and performance classes diverge sharply. The following analysis draws exclusively from recorded data to examine where each component wins, how their architectures differ, and what the numbers indicate about their respective positions.

FAQ

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses TSMC's 4 nm process node, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M uses TSMC's 6 nm process node. Intel's chip has a known transistor count of 11,500 million and a die size of 269 mm², whereas the AMD part records transistor count and die size as unknown.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses System Shared memory with a bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning it relies on the host system's memory. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a fixed 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M runs at a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 2048 shading units, compared to the AMD Radeon 820M's 128 shading units. Intel also leads in TMUs (128 vs. 8), ROPs (64 vs. 4), and ray tracing cores (16 vs. 2).

Q: What power draw is recorded?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M has a TDP of 95 W. Both are classified as IGP slot width, and neither has a specified power connector in the database.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS (FP32) and 716.8 GFLOPS (FP16, 1:1). The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS (FP32) and 10.65 TFLOPS (FP16, 2:1), which is approximately 7.4 times higher in FP32 and about 14.9 times higher in FP16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on power efficiency and integration. With a 15 W TDP, it consumes 80 W less than the Intel Arc Pro A60M's 95 W TDP. This makes the AMD part suited for thin-and-light portable devices where battery life and thermal constraints dominate. The 820M's boost clock of 2800 MHz is also notably higher than Intel's 1300 MHz boost, which indicates a design tuned for short bursts of activity within a strict power envelope. Its 4 nm process node versus Intel's 6 nm node further reinforces this efficiency-oriented positioning.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins on raw compute throughput and dedicated resources. Its 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs provide a scale that the 820M cannot match. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed, dedicated pool, whereas the 820M depends on system memory with bandwidth labeled System Dependent, meaning performance can vary with the host platform. In pixel rate, Intel records 83.20 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD, and in texture rate, Intel records 166.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. These figures show Intel's advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads.

The AMD part also wins on clock speed. A 2800 MHz boost clock compared to 1300 MHz for Intel indicates that, per clock, AMD's architecture is designed to execute quickly, though with far fewer execution units. The 820M's FP16 performance at 1:1 ratio suggests it processes half-precision and full-precision at the same rate, which can be favorable for certain compute tasks that do not benefit from packed math.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation under the Krackan Point 2 chip. The database lists its generation as "Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile)", indicating a mobile integrated graphics design. It uses a 4 nm TSMC process and has a predecessor listed as "Navi II IGP". The architecture emphasizes efficiency within a 15 W envelope, and the 1:1 FP16/FP32 ratio indicates a uniform throughput model.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture under the Alchemist generation, specifically the Pro-Series Mobile line. Its chip is DG2-256, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The Xe-HPG architecture is designed for scalable performance, and the 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio means it can double throughput when using half-precision, a feature absent from the AMD part's 1:1 ratio.

Both GPUs support ray tracing, with AMD listing 2 RT cores and Intel listing 16 RT cores. The AMD architecture integrates these cores into an IGP, while Intel's implementation is part of a discrete-class solution with a dedicated memory subsystem. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16, which affects bandwidth to the host system.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show clear divergences across nearly every field. AMD's Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz, while Intel's Arc Pro A60M starts at 900 MHz. Boost clocks reverse the order: AMD reaches 2800 MHz, Intel only 1300 MHz. Memory type differs fundamentally: AMD uses System Shared, Intel uses GDDR6. Memory size is "System Shared" for AMD versus 8 GB for Intel. Bus width is "System Shared" versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is "System Dependent" versus 256.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 128 for AMD, 2048 for Intel. TMUs: 8 vs. 128. ROPs: 4 vs. 64. RT cores: 2 vs. 16. Pixel rate: 11.20 GPixel/s vs. 83.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 22.40 GTexel/s vs. 166.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 716.8 GFLOPS vs. 5.325 TFLOPS. FP16: 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) vs. 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 15 W vs. 95 W.

Power connectors are listed as "None" for AMD, while Intel's field is null. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both. The process node is 4 nm for AMD and 6 nm for Intel. Transistors and die size are unknown for AMD but 11,500 million and 269 mm² for Intel. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel. Both share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile of 50 against all GPUs. However, the recorded specification data allows for direct quantitative comparisons. The most significant difference is in FP32 throughput. Intel's 5.325 TFLOPS versus AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS means Intel delivers approximately 7.4 times the single-precision compute. This ratio holds relevance for general-purpose GPU compute and modern game workloads that rely on FP32 shader execution.

FP16 performance shows a wider gap. Intel's 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) versus AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) results in Intel being about 14.9 times faster in half-precision operations. The 2:1 ratio on Intel means it can execute FP16 at double the FP32 rate, while AMD's 1:1 ratio offers no such boost. This makes Intel substantially stronger for machine learning inference or any workload that can utilize lower precision.

Pixel rate differences are stark. Intel's 83.20 GPixel/s versus AMD's 11.20 GPixel/s puts Intel at roughly 7.4 times higher, matching the FP32 ratio due to the proportional scaling of ROPs (64 vs. 4). Texture rate follows a similar pattern: Intel's 166.4 GTexel/s versus AMD's 22.40 GTexel/s is also 7.4 times higher, driven by the TMU count difference (128 vs. 8).

Clock speed comparison favors AMD on boost: 2800 MHz versus 1300 MHz. However, this does not overcome the execution unit deficit. The memory bandwidth difference is qualitative: Intel has a fixed 256.0 GB/s, while AMD's bandwidth is "System Dependent", meaning it could be lower or higher depending on the host system's memory configuration. The database does not provide a specific number for AMD's bandwidth, so no direct ratio can be computed.

The power envelope is a clear trade-off. AMD's 15 W TDP versus Intel's 95 W TDP means AMD uses approximately 15.8% of Intel's power budget. Given that Intel delivers over 7 times the FP32 throughput, the performance-per-watt ratio is not straightforward: Intel achieves roughly 56 GFLOPS per watt (5.325 TFLOPS divided by 95 W), while AMD achieves roughly 47.8 GFLOPS per watt (716.8 GFLOPS divided by 15 W). This suggests Intel is more efficient per watt in raw compute, though AMD's lower absolute power draw remains advantageous for constrained platforms.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these GPUs target different segments entirely. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated processor with a 15 W TDP, designed for portable devices where power draw is critical. Its 4 nm process node and 2800 MHz boost clock show an efficiency-first design. The Intel Arc Pro A60M is a discrete-class mobile GPU with 8 GB GDDR6, 2048 shading units, and a 95 W TDP, built for professional or performance-oriented mobile workstations.

For users prioritizing battery life, thermals, and integration into a CPU package, the AMD Radeon 820M is the only choice, as the database lists no alternative power level for Intel. For users needing sustained compute throughput, dedicated memory, and higher pixel/texture rates, the Intel Arc Pro A60M dominates every measured compute and fill-rate metric. The 7.4 times advantage in FP32 and pixel/texture rates, plus the 14.9 times advantage in FP16, positions Intel as the clear performer for graphics-intensive tasks.

The AMD part's FP16 performance at 1:1 ratio is a distinguishing feature, but it does not compensate for the lower absolute throughput. The Intel part's 2:1 FP16 ratio doubles its half-precision capability, which is a significant architectural advantage. The choice is straightforward: the AMD Radeon 820M serves ultra-low-power integrated needs, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M serves dedicated graphics workloads that can accommodate a 95 W TDP. The database shows no overlap in their performance classes, and each wins decisively in its respective domain.