AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two integrated graphics solutions contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores. The database shows zero wins for either AMD Radeon 820M or Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile in the head-to-head comparison field, and the average benchmark score for both entries is zero. This means that the quantitative comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data available in the database rather than on direct performance measurements.

What the data does provide is a set of computed throughput rates that can be compared directly. The AMD Radeon 820M shows a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile shows 12.80 GPixel/s. That places Intel roughly 14% ahead in pixel throughput, a margin that suggests the Intel part may handle fill-rate-bound workloads with somewhat greater efficiency. In texture rate, the Intel part shows 25.60 GTexel/s against AMD's 22.40 GTexel/s, a 14.3% advantage for Intel. The FP32 compute figure also favors Intel: 819.2 GFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS, a 14.3% lead for the Intel solution. These three metrics form a consistent picture: the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile holds a modest but uniform advantage across pixel, texture, and single-precision compute throughput.

The FP16 calculation, however, tells a different story. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput exactly. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile shows 1.638 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it achieves twice its FP32 rate in half-precision work. In raw FP16 terms, Intel is ahead, but the architectural approach differs: AMD's 1:1 ratio indicates that FP16 is processed on the same hardware path as FP32 with no throughput penalty, while Intel's 2:1 ratio shows a dedicated half-precision path that doubles the rate. For workloads that use FP16 natively, Intel's hardware offers higher raw throughput; for workloads that mix FP32 and FP16, AMD's uniform ratio may avoid conversion overheads.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the Intel part has a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1600 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 75% higher than Intel's, which partially compensates for the lower shader count in some scenarios. The AMD Radeon 820M uses 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile doubles each of those counts: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate despite its lower clocks, because it has twice the hardware units.

The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile lists no ray tracing cores. This is a structural difference that affects feature support: the AMD part can accelerate ray-traced effects in supported APIs, while the Intel part cannot. The DirectX support level also differs. AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing and variable rate shading features. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks those 12_2 features. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both, and Vulkan support is also identical at 1.4 for both.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile holds the advantage in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 819.2 GFLOPS exceeds AMD's 716.8 GFLOPS by 14.3%. Its pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s also exceed AMD's corresponding figures of 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. For applications that are bounded by shading, texturing, or pixel fill, the data favors Intel.

The AMD Radeon 820M counters with a higher boost clock (2800 MHz versus 1600 MHz) and the inclusion of ray tracing cores, which the Intel part lacks. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). For software that can use ray tracing or requires 12_2 feature levels, the AMD part is the only one of the two with the necessary hardware and API support.

The process node difference is substantial. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. The database records the AMD part as having a 15 W TDP, and the Intel part also has a 15 W TDP. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors and no separate memory; both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The equal TDP combined with Intel's higher throughput suggests that Intel extracts more raw compute from the same power envelope, at least on paper. The AMD part, however, brings features that Intel cannot match, namely ray tracing and 12_2 support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile wins in every measured throughput category that the database records: FP32 compute, FP16 compute, pixel fill, and texture fill. Its 256 shading units versus AMD's 128, 16 TMUs versus 8, and 8 ROPs versus 4 give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads that scale with unit count. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio also makes it the stronger choice for half-precision compute tasks, provided the software can use that path.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in feature support and clock speed. Its 2800 MHz boost clock is the highest clock in either entry, and its 2 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that Intel's entry cannot offer. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) designation means the AMD part is ready for titles that require features such as ray tracing, mesh shaders, and variable rate shading. The Intel part, with DirectX 12 (12_1), supports the older feature set.

For a user whose workloads are traditional rasterized games or general-purpose compute, the Intel part's higher throughput numbers suggest it may deliver better frame rates and faster compute. For a user who wants to enable ray-traced effects in supported titles, the AMD part is the only option with dedicated ray tracing hardware. The AMD part also has a much newer release date (2025-02-28) compared to Intel's (2023-01-03), and its architecture is RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm node, while Intel's is Generation 12.2 on a 10 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a higher FP32 rate of 819.2 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, a 14.3% advantage for Intel.

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

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing features. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz.

Q: How many shading units does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has 256 shading units, exactly double the AMD count.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture and pixel fill rates?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s. The AMD Radeon 820M has a texture rate of 22.40 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 11.20 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture and is described as part of the Navi III IGP generation, specifically from the Strix Point Mobile family. Its chip is designated Krackan Point 2. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses Generation 12.2 architecture and belongs to the HD Graphics-M generation based on the Raptor Lake chip. These are not just marketing differences; they reflect distinct design philosophies.

The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The transistor count and die size for both parts are recorded as unknown or null in the database, so no comparison is possible on those metrics. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, while the Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part doubles the unit counts across the board, which explains its higher throughput despite lower clocks.

Ray tracing support is the most significant architectural divergence. AMD includes 2 ray tracing cores in the 820M, while Intel lists none for the UHD Graphics 770 Mobile. This affects API support: AMD is rated for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which is the feature level that includes ray tracing, while Intel is rated for DirectX 12 (12_1), which does not include those features. Both parts support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those APIs are not differentiators.

The FP16 execution model also differs. AMD's FP16 rate is 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning the same hardware processes both formats at the same rate. Intel's FP16 rate is 1.638 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning half-precision work runs at twice the FP32 speed. The Intel part has a dedicated half-precision path that the AMD part appears to lack, at least in terms of throughput scaling.

The bus interface differs as well. AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. Both are integrated graphics with system-shared memory, system-shared bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth, so the memory subsystem is not directly comparable from the database alone.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differences between the two parts. The AMD Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz; the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The AMD part uses 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs; the Intel part uses 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has 2 ray tracing cores; the Intel part has none.

The pixel rate for AMD is 11.20 GPixel/s versus Intel's 12.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate for AMD is 22.40 GTexel/s versus Intel's 25.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 rate for AMD is 716.8 GFLOPS versus Intel's 819.2 GFLOPS. The FP16 rate for AMD is 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) versus Intel's 1.638 TFLOPS (2:1). The process node for AMD is 4 nm from TSMC; Intel's is 10 nm from Intel. The release date for AMD is 2025-02-28; Intel's is 2023-01-03. The production status for both is Active.

The DirectX support differs: AMD lists 12 Ultimate (12_2), Intel lists 12 (12_1). OpenGL and Vulkan support are identical at 4.6 and 1.4, respectively. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, Intel uses Ring Bus. Both have a TDP of 15 W, both are IGP slot width, both have no power connectors (Intel's is null), and both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The display outputs are both listed as portable device dependent. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP; the Intel part lists its successor as Arc Graphics-M. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.