AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include any direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 820M and the NVIDIA GB10. There are no shared test results in the database, no win counts assigned to either part, and no benchmark scores recorded for the AMD Radeon 820M. Its average benchmark score is 0, with no entries in the benchmark field. In contrast, the NVIDIA GB10 has two recorded benchmark results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 120,137 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 114,648. Its average benchmark score across these tests is 117,393.

The absence of comparable data for the AMD part means that any direct performance comparison must rely on the GB10's positioning relative to other GPUs. The GB10 sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a strong indicator of top-tier performance. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation with an average score of 117,088, a delta of 0.3 percent above the GB10. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118,976, which is 1.3 percent higher than the GB10. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB trails by 2.6 percent with a score of 114,395, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is 3 percent behind with 113,944.

These delta values show that the GB10 is closely matched with professional workstation GPUs. The difference between the GB10 and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is negligible at 0.3 percent, placing them in the same performance tier. The GB10 outperforms the Tesla V100 and RTX A5500 Mobile by modest margins, confirming that its compute capability is competitive with established data center and mobile workstation parts from previous generations. The AMD Radeon 820M, with no benchmark scores, cannot be positioned within this hierarchy based on the available data.

FAQ

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the NVIDIA GB10?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 120,137 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 114,648. Its average benchmark score is 117,393.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon 820M?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 820M has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no recorded wins in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GB10 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation?

A: The GB10 has an average score of 117,393, while the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088. The GB10 is 0.3 percent ahead of that rival.

Q: What is the GB10's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GB10 is at the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Which rival scores higher than the GB10?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118,976, which is 1.3 percent higher than the GB10's average score.

Q: What are the GB10's API capabilities?

A: The GB10 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a fundamental imbalance between these two products. The NVIDIA GB10 is a high-performance part with concrete benchmark evidence, a 95th percentile ranking, and an average score of 117,393. It outperforms three of its four nearest rivals, with only the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 exceeding it by 1.3 percent. The GB10's closest competitor, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, is essentially tied at 0.3 percent behind.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores, no wins, and no rival comparisons. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it does not appear in any head-to-head matchup. From the database perspective, there is no measurable evidence that the 820M can compete with the GB10 in compute workloads. The GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 29.71 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, while the 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16. That is a difference of over 40 times in raw floating-point throughput, a gap that no benchmark data would likely overturn.

The GB10 also carries a massive memory advantage: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The 820M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The GB10 has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 48 ray tracing cores, and 384 tensor cores. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. Every hardware specification that indicates compute capability strongly favors the GB10.

The verdict is straightforward: the GB10 is the only one of the two with measurable performance data, and that data places it among the top 5 percent of all GPUs. The 820M lacks any recorded performance evidence, and its specifications suggest it is an integrated graphics solution for low-power systems. The data does not support a scenario where the 820M wins any comparative benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process node, while the NVIDIA GB10 uses a 5 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The GB10 has a die size of 382 mm², while the 820M's die size is unknown.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The GB10 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2418 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different: the 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth figures. The GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Compute unit counts show a wide gap. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The GB10 has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Ray tracing cores: 2 for the 820M versus 48 for the GB10. Tensor cores: the 820M lists none, while the GB10 has 384. Pixel rates are 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M and 116.1 GPixel/s for the GB10. Texture rates are 22.40 GTexel/s versus 928.5 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are 716.8 GFLOPS for the 820M and 29.71 TFLOPS for the GB10 in both precisions.

Power consumption and physical dimensions also differ. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, while the GB10 has a TDP of 140 W. The GB10 has a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the 820M has no suggested PSU. Both are listed as IGP slot width, and both have no power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 820M, PCIe 5.0 x16 for the GB10. Display outputs: the 820M is "portable device dependent," while the GB10 has one HDMI output. The GB10 has physical dimensions of 150 mm length, 51 mm height, and 150 mm width, while the 820M has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates differ: the 820M was released on 2025-02-28, and the GB10 on 2025-10-14. The GB10 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD. The 820M has no launch MSRP listed. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the GB10's predecessor is Server Hopper. The GB10's successor is Server Rubin, while the 820M has no successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation, using the Krackan Point 2 chip. It belongs to the Strix Point Mobile line. The NVIDIA GB10 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, built on the GB20B chip.

Process nodes differ: the 820M uses a 4 nm process, while the GB10 uses a 5 nm process. Both are from TSMC, but the transistor density and total transistor count are unknown for both parts. The GB10 has a known die size of 382 mm², while the 820M's die size is unknown.

The 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GB10 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, indicating that it is a compute-focused server part without graphics API support. This is a critical architectural distinction: the 820M is designed as an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices, while the GB10 is a server-class compute unit.

The shading architecture differs significantly. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, which is a small configuration suited for low-power integrated graphics. The GB10 has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, a configuration appropriate for data center workloads. Ray tracing cores number 2 for the 820M and 48 for the GB10. Tensor cores are absent from the 820M but number 384 for the GB10, indicating a strong machine learning capability for the NVIDIA part.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The 820M relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width. The GB10 has dedicated 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the GB10 a predictable, high-bandwidth memory subsystem, while the 820M's performance depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

The 820M's RDNA 3.5 architecture includes ray tracing support with 2 dedicated cores, and it supports modern graphics APIs. The GB10's Blackwell 2.0 architecture includes 48 ray tracing cores and 384 tensor cores, but no graphics API support, suggesting it is optimized for compute and AI workloads rather than traditional rendering. The GB10's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 29.71 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio, while the 820M also has a 1:1 ratio at 716.8 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GB10 wins in every category where benchmark data or hardware specifications provide a basis for comparison. Its average benchmark score of 117,393 places it at the 95th percentile of all GPUs. It beats the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 0.3 percent, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.6 percent, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 3 percent. Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 exceeds it, by 1.3 percent. These results indicate that the GB10 is a top-tier compute device suitable for demanding workloads.

The GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, combined with 384 tensor cores and 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory at 273.2 GB/s, makes it suited for high-throughput compute tasks, AI inference, and memory-intensive applications. Its 48 ray tracing cores add hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads, although the lack of graphics API support limits its use in traditional gaming or rendering environments. The GB10's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides high-bandwidth connectivity to host systems.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark wins and no scores, so it cannot be said to win any measured comparison. Its hardware specifications indicate a different use case: a low-power integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, designed for portable devices. Its 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs provide basic graphics capability, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it functional for standard graphics APIs. The 820M's system-shared memory means its performance depends on the host system's RAM, and its 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is far below the GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS.

The data implies that the 820M would win in scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint, as its 15 W TDP is far lower than the GB10's 140 W. It also wins in terms of graphics API support, since the GB10 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any compute workload, the GB10's massive advantage in shading units, memory bandwidth, and tensor cores makes it the clear performer. The 820M is a capable integrated graphics solution for mobile systems, but the database contains no evidence that it can match the GB10 in any benchmarked task.