AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 820M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 occupy very different positions in the hardware landscape. The 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into AMD's Krackan Point 2 chip, designed for portable devices. The RTX 4010 is a discrete, single-slot graphics card from NVIDIA's GeForce 40-series lineup. Benchmark data in the database shows a clear performance gap, but the architectural and specification differences explain why these two products target entirely separate use cases. This analysis walks through the recorded data to show where each unit wins, how their designs diverge, and what the numbers indicate for potential users.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark results are one-sided. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a single benchmark entry in the database, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, with a score of 2893. The AMD Radeon 820M has no benchmark entries at all, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counters show zero wins for both parts. This means the RTX 4010 is the only one of the two with measurable performance data, and it sits at the 18th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Radeon 820M, by contrast, holds the 50th percentile position, but that figure is based on its specifications and classification rather than any actual benchmark runs.

Looking at the RTX 4010's nearest rivals, its score of 2893 places it within a very tight cluster. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2907, which is 0.5 percent higher. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2910, 0.6 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2913, 0.7 percent higher. Even the NVIDIA Quadro P600 scores 2923, a full 1 percent higher. This indicates that the RTX 4010 performs essentially at parity with those four cards in this specific test, trailing each by less than a single percentage point. For a low-power, single-slot card, that level of proximity to much larger and more expensive products is notable.

The Radeon 820M's win condition is different. It has no benchmark score, so its advantage lies in its physical integration. The data shows it is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a thermal design power of 15 watts. It is designed to be embedded into a portable device, which means it takes up zero expansion slots and requires no additional cooling beyond what the host system provides. For thin-and-light laptops or compact handhelds, the 820M is the only viable option between these two, because the RTX 4010 is a separate card with a 163 mm length, a 69 mm height, and a 50 watt thermal design power.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use completely distinct architectures. The AMD Radeon 820M is built on RDNA 3.5, which the database categorizes under the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. Its chip is called Krackan Point 2, and it is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the Ampere architecture, belongs to the GeForce 40 generation, and is built on a GA107 chip manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 8 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency, though the exact transistor count for the AMD chip is listed as unknown. The RTX 4010 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The ray tracing and compute resources differ sharply. The AMD Radeon 820M includes 2 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. This means the RTX 4010 has dedicated hardware for both ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while the 820M only has minimal ray tracing support. The shading units also differ: the 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. These are the core building blocks for rasterization, and the RTX 4010 has six times the shading units, three times the texture units, and four times the render outputs.

Both GPUs support the same API set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory architecture is where they diverge completely. The Radeon 820M uses system shared memory, with the bus width and memory type also marked as system shared. Its memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent. The RTX 4010 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64 bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The clock speeds reflect their different roles: the 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the RTX 4010 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The AMD part boosts much higher, but the NVIDIA part starts at a much higher base frequency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two products. The only recorded performance data is the RTX 4010's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893. With no corresponding score for the Radeon 820M, a direct numerical comparison is impossible. However, the RTX 4010's position relative to its nearest rivals provides context. Its score of 2893 is within 1 percent of four other NVIDIA cards, all of which score between 2907 and 2923. The tight grouping suggests that the RTX 4010 delivers performance consistent with that class of hardware in this particular test.

The Radeon 820M's lack of benchmark data means it cannot be placed on the same scale. Its average benchmark score of zero and empty benchmark array indicate that no standardized tests have been recorded for it in the database. The 50th percentile ranking is based on its specification profile, not on measured performance. The RTX 4010, with its 18th percentile ranking, sits below the median of all GPUs, but it has a concrete score that can be compared across the database.

For the biggest wins in each direction, the data only supports one side. The RTX 4010 wins on every measurable performance metric. Its pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M. Its texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute is 2.706 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. Its FP16 compute is also 2.706 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS, with both listed as 1:1 ratios. These are not close margins. The RTX 4010 delivers more than double the pixel throughput, nearly double the texture throughput, and roughly 3.8 times the FP32 compute of the AMD IGP.

The Radeon 820M wins on physical footprint and power draw. Its thermal design power is 15 watts, while the RTX 4010 is rated at 50 watts. The 820M is an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors, while the RTX 4010 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but a suggested power supply of 250 watts. The 820M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, whereas the RTX 4010 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For a system that cannot accommodate an expansion card, the 820M is the only choice.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across nearly every field. The process node differs: 4 nm for the AMD part, 8 nm for the NVIDIA part. The foundries differ: TSMC for AMD, Samsung for NVIDIA. The RTX 4010 has a known transistor count of 8,700 million and a die size of 200 mm², while the 820M's transistors and die size are listed as unknown. The memory configuration is fundamentally different: system shared for the AMD part versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth for the NVIDIA part.

The compute resources differ by multiples. The 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 2 RT cores, and no tensor cores. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores. The clock behavior is inverted: the AMD part has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part has a 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32/FP16 figures all favor the RTX 4010 by wide margins. The TDP is 15 W for the AMD part and 50 W for the NVIDIA part. The slot width is IGP for AMD and single-slot for NVIDIA. The power connectors are none for both, but the NVIDIA part lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. The RTX 4010 has physical dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height, while the AMD part has no listed dimensions because it is an IGP.

The release dates differ by roughly ten months. The RTX 4010 was released on 2024-04-15, and the Radeon 820M was released on 2025-02-28. The production status for both is active. The RTX 4010's predecessor is listed as GeForce 30 and its successor as GeForce 50, while the 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and it has no successor listed. The RTX 4010 belongs to the GeForce 40 series, and the 820M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a recorded benchmark score. It scored 2893 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The AMD Radeon 820M has no benchmark entries and an average benchmark score of zero.

Q: How does the RTX 4010 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 4010 scores 2893, which is 0.5 percent lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (2907), 0.6 percent lower than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (2910), 0.7 percent lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913), and 1 percent lower than the NVIDIA Quadro P600 (2923).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory, with the size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system shared or system dependent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64 bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power requirement for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a thermal design power of 15 watts and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a thermal design power of 50 watts, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested power supply of 250 watts.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has 6 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 2 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4010 also has 24 tensor cores, while the 820M has none.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 is the only one of these two with any recorded performance, and that performance is substantial. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893 places it within 1 percent of the RTX 4060 Ti variants and the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF. Its FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS, texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s are multiples of the AMD Radeon 820M's figures. For any workload that requires measured graphics performance, the RTX 4010 is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon 820M has no benchmark score, but its specification profile shows a different purpose. With a 15 watt TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and system shared memory, it is built for integration into a portable device. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is higher than the RTX 4010's 1762 MHz, but its shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth are far lower. Its 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 performance is less than one third of the RTX 4010's 2.706 TFLOPS.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the physical constraints of the host system. A user building a desktop or a machine with an available expansion slot should select the RTX 4010, as it delivers a concrete, measurable performance level that rivals cards scoring much higher in the database. A user designing a portable device with no slot for a discrete card has no choice but the Radeon 820M, which provides basic graphics capability within a 15 watt envelope and uses the system's shared memory. The RTX 4010 wins every benchmark comparison, but the 820M wins on integration and power efficiency. The recorded data supports only one conclusion for performance, and only one for form factor.