AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 820M versus the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. The wins tally for both parts is zero, and the average benchmark score for each is zero. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both, indicating that neither part has accumulated enough measured performance data in the database to generate a meaningful comparison score. Consequently, any performance differentiation must be derived from the theoretical throughput figures recorded in the specification sheets, not from executed test workloads.

The AMD Radeon 820M lists a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lists 4.800 GPixel/s. That places the AMD part roughly 2.33 times higher in pixel throughput based on the recorded fill-rate figures. The texture rate shows a similar gap: the Radeon 820M delivers 22.40 GTexel/s versus 9.600 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a factor of approximately 2.33 as well. These ratios follow directly from the clock and unit counts, but they do indicate that, on paper, the AMD IGP has substantially higher rasterization and texturing capacity.

In floating-point compute, the Radeon 820M records 716.8 GFLOPS for FP32, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile records 307.2 GFLOPS. The AMD part is therefore 2.33 times higher in single-precision throughput. For FP16, the Radeon 820M lists 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part lists 614.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part still leads in raw half-precision output, but the margin narrows to approximately 1.17 times. The different FP16 ratios indicate distinct execution strategies: the AMD architecture processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while the Intel architecture doubles its FP16 output relative to FP32.

The boost clocks differ markedly. The Radeon 820M reaches 2800 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile tops out at 1200 MHz. Base clocks are 400 MHz and 300 MHz respectively. The AMD part also operates on a 4 nm process from TSMC, whereas the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel. These process and clock differences contribute to the computed throughput advantages, though the database does not include power draw measurements beyond the 15 W TDP listed for both parts.

Both GPUs share identical shading unit counts at 128, identical texture mapping units at 8, and identical render output units at 4. The performance gap therefore stems entirely from clock speed and architectural efficiency, not from a larger execution resource pool. The Radeon 820M also includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel part, which records no RT cores at all. This suggests the AMD IGP can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads, while the Intel part cannot.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M lists a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lists 1200 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon 820M and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile record 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No, the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M records 716.8 GFLOPS in FP32, which is 2.33 times higher than the 307.2 GFLOPS recorded for the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: What is the FP16 performance ratio for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio with 716.8 GFLOPS, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has a 2:1 ratio with 614.4 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, designated as part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The chip is named Krackan Point 2. The process node is 4 nm at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses the Generation 12.2 architecture, part of the HD Graphics-M generation for Raptor Lake. The chip is simply named Raptor Lake, and the process node is 10 nm at Intel.

The RDNA 3.5 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, whereas the Intel Generation 12.2 architecture supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. This difference matters for graphics API capabilities, as the 12_2 feature level includes additional hardware features such as mesh shaders and variable-rate shading, which are tied to the ray tracing support present on the AMD part. Both GPUs list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API levels are identical.

The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lacks entirely. This is the most significant architectural divergence in terms of feature set. The AMD part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. The bus architecture difference reflects the integration approach: the AMD IGP connects through a standard PCIe link, while the Intel IGP sits on the processor's internal ring interconnect.

The FP16 execution ratio differs substantially. The AMD Radeon 820M processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning both data types execute at the same rate of 716.8 GFLOPS. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile processes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 614.4 GFLOPS in FP16 versus 307.2 GFLOPS in FP32. This indicates the Intel architecture uses a different data path for half-precision operations, likely packing two FP16 operations into a single FP32 datapath slot.

The Intel part has a designated successor in the database: Arc Graphics-M. The AMD part has no successor listed, but its predecessor is Navi II IGP. The Intel part also has no predecessor listed. The production status for both is Active, so neither is discontinued.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M and Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile differ in several recorded specification fields. The architecture field lists RDNA 3.5 for AMD and Generation 12.2 for Intel. The generation field lists Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) for AMD and HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) for Intel. The chip names differ: Krackan Point 2 for AMD, Raptor Lake for Intel.

The process node is 4 nm at TSMC for AMD, versus 10 nm at Intel for the Intel part. The foundry is therefore different as well. The transistor count and die size are listed as unknown for the AMD part, and null for the Intel part, so no comparison is possible there.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost values. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The memory configuration is identical in form: System Shared for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth is System Dependent for both. No dedicated VRAM exists on either part.

Pixel rate differs, with 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD and 4.800 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate differs with 22.40 GTexel/s for AMD and 9.600 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 throughput differs with 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD and 307.2 GFLOPS for Intel. FP16 throughput differs with 716.8 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for AMD and 614.4 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for Intel.

The ray tracing core count is 2 for AMD and null for Intel. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and Ring Bus for Intel. The DirectX version is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for AMD and 12 (12_1) for Intel. OpenGL and Vulkan versions are identical at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively.

The TDP is 15 W for both parts. The slot width is IGP for both, and display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for both. The AMD part lists power connectors as None, while the Intel part lists null for that field. The suggested PSU is null for both. Dimensions are null for both.

Release dates differ. The AMD Radeon 820M was released on 2025-02-28, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile was released on 2023-01-03. The Intel part has a successor named Arc Graphics-M, while the AMD part has no successor. The AMD part has a predecessor named Navi II IGP, while the Intel part has no predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins decisively on raw throughput metrics based on the recorded specification data. Its pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s is more than double the 4.800 GPixel/s of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. Its texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s similarly doubles the 9.600 GTexel/s of the Intel part. For applications that rely on fill-rate-bound rendering, such as traditional rasterization with high texture detail, the AMD part has a clear theoretical advantage.

The AMD Radeon 820M also wins on FP32 compute with 716.8 GFLOPS, which is 2.33 times the 307.2 GFLOPS of the Intel part. This matters for compute workloads that use single-precision floating-point math, including physics simulations, image processing filters, and certain machine learning inference tasks that do not rely on dedicated tensor cores. The AMD part also holds a lead in FP16 with 716.8 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS, though the margin is smaller. The 1:1 FP16 ratio on the AMD part suggests it does not gain additional throughput from half-precision data, while the Intel part's 2:1 ratio indicates it can double its FP16 output. However, the AMD part's higher base FP32 rate keeps it ahead in FP16 as well.

The AMD Radeon 820M has hardware ray tracing cores, which the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lacks. Any workload that involves ray-traced effects, such as reflections, shadows, or global illumination, can only be hardware-accelerated on the AMD part. The Intel part would need to fall back to software methods or omit the effects entirely. This makes the AMD part suitable for modern game engines that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features, given its 12_2 feature level support. The Intel part's 12_1 feature level excludes some of those advanced features.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins in release timing, having been available since 2023-01-03, which is over two years earlier than the AMD Radeon 820M's 2025-02-28 release date. For systems designed before the AMD part's launch, the Intel IGP is the only option of the two. The Intel part also uses a Ring Bus interface, which may integrate more directly with the processor's memory subsystem in Raptor Lake platforms, though the database does not provide measured bandwidth figures to confirm any advantage.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile records a lower boost clock of 1200 MHz, which contributes to its lower throughput, but it also records a lower base clock of 300 MHz. The lower clocks may translate to more predictable power behavior under sustained load, though both parts list the same 15 W TDP. The Intel part's FP16 ratio of 2:1 could provide an efficiency benefit in half-precision workloads, since it extracts double the FP32 rate from the same execution units. In a scenario where FP16 is the dominant data type and the workload is not fill-rate bound, the Intel part's relative FP16 performance is closer to the AMD part.

Neither part has any recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival data in the database, so both occupy the same 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The absence of measured results means that real-world performance could differ from the theoretical rates, depending on driver efficiency, memory bandwidth, and thermal constraints within the host system. The AMD part's higher clock and newer process node give it the architectural advantage on paper, while the Intel part's earlier availability and integrated ring bus design define its role in existing platforms. The data supports the AMD Radeon 820M as the stronger performer in compute and rendering throughput, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile serves as a baseline IGP with half-precision capability and earlier market presence.