AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 820M and NVIDIA B300 occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the data confirms they are not direct competitors. The Radeon 820M is a 15 W integrated graphics processor built for mobile devices, while the B300 is a 1400 W server accelerator designed for high-performance computing. Users requiring a compact, low-power IGP for a portable system should select the Radeon 820M. Organizations deploying server infrastructure for massive parallel workloads should choose the NVIDIA B300. The recorded data shows no overlap in their intended use cases, physical form factors, or performance envelopes.

The Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance from 128 shading units, while the B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS from 18944 shading units. That represents a difference of more than two orders of magnitude in raw compute throughput. The B300 also provides 144 GB of HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth, whereas the 820M relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The B300 is a dedicated accelerator with no display outputs, while the 820M is an IGP whose display outputs are portable device dependent. There is no scenario in the data where these two parts would be evaluated against each other for the same purchase decision.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP allows it to operate within the thermal budget of a mobile processor package, and its IGP slot width means it requires no separate expansion slot. The 820M uses no power connectors and can output to portable device displays, making it suitable for laptops and similar devices. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface is sufficient for an integrated part that shares system memory.

The NVIDIA B300 wins decisively in every compute metric recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS is approximately 107 times higher than the 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS. The B300's texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s dwarfs the 820M's 22.40 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors the B300 at 48.77 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s. The B300 also brings 592 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the 820M's specification sheet, enabling specialized AI and deep learning workloads. The B300's 104,000 million transistors on a 5 nm TSMC process represent a massive silicon investment compared to the 820M's 4 nm process with transistor count listed as unknown.

The B300's memory subsystem is another clear victory. With 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096 bit bus, it delivers 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The 820M has no dedicated memory; it shares system memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent. For workloads that stress memory capacity or bandwidth, the B300 is the only viable option in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, and is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip is designated Krackan Point 2. The NVIDIA B300 uses Blackwell Ultra architecture, belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip is the GB110.

The 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists no API support in the database, no ray tracing core count, and instead features 592 tensor cores. The B300's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin, while the 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP with no successor listed. The B300 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which doubles the lane width and doubles the generation speed compared to the 820M's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The B300 runs at a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2032 MHz. The 820M's boost clock is higher, but the B300's much larger shader array makes the clock comparison irrelevant for overall performance. The B300 lists its memory clock at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the 820M's memory clock is tied to the system.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon 820M provides 716.8 GFLOPS. The B300 is roughly 107 times faster in this metric.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. The Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B300 has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan versions listed in the database.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096 bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The 820M uses system shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as system shared, and bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 has a 1400 W TDP and requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

Q: Can either GPU output to displays?

A: The Radeon 820M's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it can drive displays in a mobile context. The B300 has no display outputs.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA B300 lists tensor cores, with 592 units. The AMD Radeon 820M does not list any tensor cores in its specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. The comparison must therefore rely on the specification data. The FP32 gap is the most striking difference: 76.99 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. The B300's shading unit count of 18944 compares to 128 for the 820M, a ratio of approximately 148 to 1. Texture units favor the B300 at 592 versus 8, and ROPs favor it at 24 versus 4.

The B300's texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s is roughly 54 times the 820M's 22.40 GTexel/s. Pixel rate shows a smaller gap: 48.77 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, a factor of about 4.4. This narrower pixel rate difference reflects the B300's relatively low ROP count of 24 compared to its massive shader array, while the 820M has only 4 ROPs.

FP16 performance presents an interesting divergence. The 820M lists FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The B300 lists FP16 at 1,231.8 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio. The B300's FP16 throughput is more than 1,700 times higher than the 820M's FP16 figure, and the ratio difference indicates that the B300 is heavily optimized for reduced-precision workloads, likely for AI training and inference.

Memory bandwidth is another categorical separation. The B300's 4.10 TB/s over a 4096 bit HBM3e interface is a fixed, dedicated resource. The 820M's bandwidth is system dependent, meaning its performance varies with the host platform's memory configuration. The 820M's memory clock is also system shared, while the B300 runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Process nodes are close but not identical: the 820M uses 4 nm TSMC, the B300 uses 5 nm TSMC. The B300's transistor count is listed at 104,000 million, while the 820M's transistor count is unknown. Die size is unknown for both.

Clock speeds differ in direction. The 820M has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost. The B300 has a 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. Memory configurations are completely different: the 820M uses system shared memory, while the B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e with a 4096 bit bus and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources show the scale gap. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The B300 has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no listed ray tracing cores, and 592 tensor cores. FP32 output is 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M and 76.99 TFLOPS for the B300. FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS at 1:1 for the 820M and 1,231.8 TFLOPS at 16:1 for the B300.

Power and form factor separate them further. The 820M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The B300 is an SXM Module with a 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 820M and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the B300. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 820M and absent for the B300. The 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the B300 lists no APIs. Release dates are 2025-02-28 for the 820M and 2025-09-10 for the B300. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the B300's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.