AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two GPUs contains no completed benchmark runs. The database lists both processors with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. With no head-to-head benchmark entries, wins cannot be assigned to either part. The AMD Radeon 820M holds zero recorded wins, and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation also holds zero recorded wins. This absence of measured performance data means the analysis must rely entirely on architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures derived from the clock rates and unit counts in the database.

The FP32 compute figures illustrate the scale of the gap. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of single-precision compute. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 32.69 TFLOPS. Converting both to the same unit, the NVIDIA part offers 32,690 GFLOPS, which is roughly 45.6 times the AMD integrated solution. This is not a close contest by any metric. The texture rate tells a similar story: AMD lists 22.40 GTexel/s against NVIDIA's 510.7 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput follows the same pattern, with AMD at 11.20 GPixel/s and NVIDIA at 188.2 GPixel/s.

The memory subsystem separates the two even further. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning the actual throughput depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation carries 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a fixed 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement removes the dependency on system RAM and provides a consistent, high-bandwidth pool for graphics and compute workloads.

Clock speeds show a different relationship. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. While AMD's boost clock is substantially higher, the NVIDIA part compensates with vastly more execution resources. The shading unit count alone explains the compute disparity: AMD has 128 shading units, NVIDIA has 9728. Texture mapping units number 8 on AMD versus 304 on NVIDIA. Render output units total 4 on AMD versus 112 on NVIDIA. Ray tracing cores number 2 on AMD versus 76 on NVIDIA. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA part, with 304 units listed, while the AMD entry has no tensor core field.

The FP16 figures mirror the FP32 figures exactly. AMD lists 716.8 GFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, and NVIDIA lists 32.69 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. This indicates neither GPU uses a dedicated half-precision path with a separate throughput multiplier; both execute FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

The power envelope differs dramatically. AMD lists a TDP of 15 W, which is consistent with an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices. NVIDIA lists a TDP of 120 W, eight times higher. This power gap explains the performance difference in practical terms. The AMD part draws a fraction of the power and delivers a fraction of the throughput. The NVIDIA part consumes significantly more power but offers compute capabilities that are orders of magnitude higher.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, use different architectures, and target entirely different market segments. The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, specifically the Strix Point Mobile family. The chip is identified as Krackan Point 2. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip is designated AD103, and it belongs to the Ada-MW generation within the GeForce 50-series product line.

The process nodes differ slightly. AMD uses 4 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Both are TSMC fabrication, but the smaller node gives AMD a potential density advantage, though the database does not list transistor counts or die size for the AMD part. For the NVIDIA part, the database lists 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD part lists transistors and die size as unknown, so no density comparison can be made from the recorded data.

The release dates place these products in different eras. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation entered production with an active status and a release date of March 20, 2023. The AMD Radeon 820M has a release date of February 28, 2025, also with an active production status. The AMD part succeeds the Navi II IGP, while the NVIDIA part succeeds the Ampere-MW generation and has a successor listed as Blackwell-MW.

Memory architecture differences are fundamental. AMD uses system shared memory for both size and type, with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. This means the GPU has no dedicated video memory; it borrows from the host system's RAM. NVIDIA uses 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with a fixed 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for NVIDIA is listed at 2250 MHz, with 18 Gbps effective data rate. AMD's memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared," indicating the memory operates at whatever speed the system provides.

The bus interface differs as well. AMD connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, NVIDIA via PCIe 4.0 x16. The wider interface on the NVIDIA part allows for greater data transfer between the GPU and the host system, though for a GPU with dedicated memory, the PCIe link matters less for graphics workloads and more for data exchange with the CPU.

The display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning neither GPU has fixed display connectors; both are designed for integration into portable devices where the OEM determines the output configuration. Both GPUs have a slot width of "IGP," confirming they are integrated graphics processors rather than discrete add-in cards. Neither requires power connectors, and neither has dimensions listed.

API support is identical across the two. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software written for these API versions will run on either GPU, though the performance envelope will differ enormously.

The AMD part has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part has 304 tensor cores. This is a significant architectural difference. Tensor cores accelerate AI and machine learning workloads, including features like DLSS. The absence of tensor cores on the AMD part means those workloads must run on the general-purpose shading units, which is far less efficient.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation is a high-performance mobile GPU designed for demanding professional and compute workloads, while the AMD Radeon 820M is a low-power integrated solution for basic graphics in thin portable devices.

For any workload that requires substantial compute throughput, the NVIDIA part is the only viable option. Its 32.69 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory place it in a completely different performance class than the AMD part. The 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores add capabilities that the AMD part simply does not have. Any application that uses ray tracing, AI inference, or machine learning acceleration will require the NVIDIA GPU.

The AMD Radeon 820M, with its 15 W TDP, is suited for basic graphics output, video playback, and light 2D workloads. Its 716.8 GFLOPS FP32 performance is sufficient for desktop composition and simple games at low settings, but it cannot approach the compute density of the NVIDIA part. The system shared memory arrangement means performance will vary depending on the host platform's memory speed and configuration.

The power draw difference is decisive for battery-powered devices. A 15 W GPU is appropriate for a thin-and-light laptop where battery life is a priority. A 120 W GPU requires a larger thermal solution and a more substantial battery, but it delivers professional-grade graphics performance in a portable form factor.

The release dates also matter. The NVIDIA part has been available since March 2023, giving it a longer production history. The AMD part launched in February 2025, making it a newer design. However, newer does not mean faster; the architectural gap is too large for the newer process node to close.

For users who need CUDA or Tensor Core acceleration, the choice is obvious. The NVIDIA part has 304 tensor cores; the AMD part has none. For users who need ray tracing, the NVIDIA part has 76 dedicated RT cores; the AMD part has 2. The database records no benchmark wins for either GPU, but the specification differences are so large that benchmark data would almost certainly confirm the NVIDIA part's dominance in compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 32.69 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part offers roughly 45.6 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated video memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W. Neither GPU requires external power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Does either GPU have tensor cores for AI workloads?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has tensor cores, with 304 units listed. The AMD Radeon 820M has no tensor core field in its specifications.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has 76 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon 820M has 2 ray tracing cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is one-eighth of the NVIDIA part's 120 W TDP. For a portable device where battery life and thermal management are the primary constraints, the AMD part is the sensible choice. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is higher than the NVIDIA part's 1680 MHz boost, which could provide snappy response in low-load scenarios where clock speed matters more than raw throughput. The 4 nm process node is also smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm node, potentially allowing for a more compact implementation in a system-on-chip design.

The AMD part also wins on release recency. With a February 2025 release date, it is a newer design than the March 2023 NVIDIA part. Newer does not inherently mean better, but the AMD part benefits from more recent engineering and a more advanced process node.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every compute category recorded in the database. FP32 performance is 32.69 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same ratio at 32.69 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. Texture rate is 510.7 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 188.2 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part has 9728 shading units versus 128, 304 TMUs versus 8, 112 ROPs versus 4, 76 RT cores versus 2, and 304 tensor cores versus none.

Memory is another decisive win for NVIDIA. The 16 GB dedicated GDDR6 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage over system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture loads, high-resolution rendering, or data-intensive compute, the NVIDIA part will not be constrained by the host system's memory configuration.

The bus interface also favors NVIDIA. PCIe 4.0 x16 offers twice the lane count of the AMD part's PCIe 4.0 x8. For workloads that transfer large amounts of data between the CPU and GPU, the wider interface reduces transfer time.

The transistor count for NVIDIA is listed at 45,900 million on a 379 mm² die. The AMD part's transistor count and die size are unknown, so no direct comparison is possible, but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip suggests a much larger and more complex design.

For professional graphics workloads, the NVIDIA part is the clear winner. The combination of 76 RT cores, 304 tensor cores, 16 GB of GDDR6, and 32.69 TFLOPS FP32 makes it suitable for rendering, simulation, AI inference, and other compute-intensive tasks. The AMD part, with 2 RT cores, no tensor cores, and under a teraflop of FP32 performance, is limited to basic graphics output and light compute.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Series: None listed for AMD; GeForce 50-series for NVIDIA
• Chip: Krackan Point 2 for AMD; AD103 for NVIDIA
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 for AMD; Ada Lovelace for NVIDIA
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) for AMD; Ada-MW for NVIDIA
• Process Node: 4 nm for AMD; 5 nm for NVIDIA
• Transistors: Unknown for AMD; 45,900 million for NVIDIA
• Die Size: Unknown for AMD; 379 mm² for NVIDIA
• Transistor Density: Not listed for AMD; 121.1M / mm² for NVIDIA
• Base Clock: 400 MHz for AMD; 930 MHz for NVIDIA
• Boost Clock: 2800 MHz for AMD; 1680 MHz for NVIDIA
• Memory Clock: System Shared for AMD; 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for NVIDIA
• Memory Size: System Shared for AMD; 16 GB for NVIDIA
• Memory Type: System Shared for AMD; GDDR6 for NVIDIA
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared for AMD; 256 bit for NVIDIA
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent for AMD; 576.0 GB/s for NVIDIA
• Shading Units: 128 for AMD; 9728 for NVIDIA
• TMUs: 8 for AMD; 304 for NVIDIA
• ROPs: 4 for AMD; 112 for NVIDIA
• RT Cores: 2 for AMD; 76 for NVIDIA
• Tensor Cores: Not listed for AMD; 304 for NVIDIA
• Pixel Rate: 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD; 188.2 GPixel/s for NVIDIA
• Texture Rate: 22.40 GTexel/s for AMD; 510.7 GTexel/s for NVIDIA
• FP32: 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD; 32.69 TFLOPS for NVIDIA
• FP16: 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD; 32.69 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA
• TDP: 15 W for AMD; 120 W for NVIDIA
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD; PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA
• Release Date: 2025-02-28 for AMD; 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP for AMD; Ampere-MW for NVIDIA
• Successor: None listed for AMD; Blackwell-MW for NVIDIA

Fields that are identical include slot width (IGP for both), power connectors (none for both), display outputs (portable device dependent for both), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for both). Neither GPU has a launch MSRP listed, dimensions, or suggested PSU. Both are marked as active production parts.