AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon 820M or the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. The average benchmark score for both entries is 0, and there are no head-to-head benchmark entries available for direct comparison. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, indicating that without measured results, neither part can be positioned above the other in raw performance terms.

The absence of benchmark data means the recorded statistics must be examined directly. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers an FP32 throughput of 716.8 GFLOPS, which is 86.7% higher than the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile's 384.0 GFLOPS. The texture rate differential is even larger: the Radeon 820M reaches 22.40 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a margin of 86.7% in favor of AMD. Pixel rate shows a similar pattern, with the Radeon 820M producing 11.20 GPixel/s compared to 4.000 GPixel/s on the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile, a 180% advantage.

The Intel part does hold one computational edge. Its FP16 throughput is 768.0 GFLOPS, which is 7.1% higher than the Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. However, the AMD implementation runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning both rates are identical at 716.8 GFLOPS. The Intel implementation uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP16 rate relative to its FP32 figure. This makes the Intel part more efficient in half-precision workloads per unit of FP32 capability, though the absolute difference is modest.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, a span of 2400 MHz. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz, a span of just 700 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 180% higher than the Intel boost clock. These clock figures, combined with the shading unit counts, explain the FP32 gap: the Radeon 820M uses 128 shading units at a much higher boost clock, while the Intel part uses 192 shading units at a substantially lower boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in most raw throughput categories. Its FP32 result of 716.8 GFLOPS is 86.7% ahead of the Intel part. Texture work favors AMD by the same proportional margin, with 22.40 GTexel/s versus 12.00 GTexel/s. Pixel output favors AMD by a wider margin: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s, or 180% higher. These figures indicate the Radeon 820M is better suited to conventional 3D rendering workloads that rely on shader math, texture filtering, and rasterization.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile wins in FP16 compute. Its 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 rate exceeds the AMD part's 716.8 GFLOPS by 7.1%. This makes the Intel solution the better choice for applications that can use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain compute tasks or AI inference workloads that operate in FP16. The Intel part also carries a higher shading unit count at 192 versus 128 on the AMD side, though the lower clock speed limits the practical impact of that count in FP32 work.

Feature support differs in ways that matter for API-level compatibility. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD part includes 2 ray tracing cores; the Intel part has none. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon 820M also benefits from a newer architecture generation, RDNA 3.5, compared to Xe-LP on the Intel side.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile operates at 6 W. The Intel part draws 60% less power, which may make it preferable in thermally constrained or battery-focused designs. The AMD part requires no power connectors, and neither part uses external power, but the Intel part's lower TDP gives it an efficiency profile that the raw throughput numbers do not capture.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and process nodes. AMD builds the Radeon 820M on a 4 nm process at TSMC, using the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The chip is identified as Krackan Point 2, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation (Strix Point Mobile). Intel builds the Graphics 24EU Mobile on a 10 nm process at Intel, using the Xe-LP architecture. The chip is identified as Twin Lake and belongs to the HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) generation.

The shading resources differ in composition. The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the AMD part achieves higher texture and pixel throughput because of its significantly higher clock speeds.

Ray tracing capability is exclusive to the AMD part. The Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores, which support the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). This is a structural difference in the hardware, not just a driver-level distinction.

Memory architecture is similar in concept but unspecified in detail. Both GPUs use system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth. The bus width is listed as system shared for both, meaning neither has a dedicated memory interface. The Radeon 820M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a ring bus interface. This difference in bus architecture reflects their different integration approaches within their respective platforms.

The process node gap is notable: 4 nm on the AMD side versus 10 nm on the Intel side. This two-generation process difference helps explain why the AMD part can operate at a boost clock of 2800 MHz while consuming 15 W, whereas the Intel part reaches only 1000 MHz at 6 W. Transistor counts and die sizes are unknown for both parts, so a density comparison cannot be made from the recorded data.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy in conventional graphics work. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 86.7% higher FP32 throughput, 86.7% higher texture rate, and 180% higher pixel rate than the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile. For any workload that depends on rasterization, texture filtering, or standard shader math, the AMD part is the stronger option.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is the better choice only for FP16 compute tasks, where its 768.0 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD part by 7.1%. It also draws 60% less power at 6 W versus 15 W, which makes it suitable for platforms where thermal and power budgets are tight. The higher shading unit count of 192 does not translate into a throughput advantage at FP32 because of the low 1000 MHz boost clock.

The AMD part carries additional feature advantages: ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a newer RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process. The Intel part counters with a higher FP16 rate and lower power draw, but it lacks ray tracing and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). For users prioritizing rendering performance and modern graphics features, the data points to the AMD Radeon 820M. For users prioritizing power efficiency and half-precision compute, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a place.

The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest on computed throughput figures and architectural specifications. The 50th percentile ranking for both parts against all GPUs indicates that neither is an outlier in either direction within the database. Both are integrated graphics solutions with no dedicated memory and no external power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has an FP32 throughput of 716.8 GFLOPS, which is 86.7% higher than the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile's 384.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, its FP16 throughput is 768.0 GFLOPS, which is 7.1% higher than the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Do these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a TDP of 6 W, which is 60% lower.

Q: Which DirectX versions do they support?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile has a boost clock of 1000 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 820M | Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile |

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

| Chip | Krackan Point 2 | Twin Lake |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Xe-LP |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | HD Graphics-T (Twin Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Shading Units | 128 | 192 |

| TMUs | 8 | 12 |

| ROPs | 4 | 4 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 11.20 GPixel/s | 4.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.40 GTexel/s | 12.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 716.8 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 6 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

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

| Release Date | 2025-02-28 | 2024-12-31 |

| Production Status | Active | Active |