AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the fundamental difference in how the AMD Radeon 820M and NVIDIA RTX A400 are deployed?

A: The Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) using the Krackan Point 2 chip, built on RDNA 3.5 architecture, while the RTX A400 is a discrete single-slot workstation card based on the GA107 chip with Ampere architecture.

Q: How do the benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The database contains benchmark scores only for the RTX A400. Its average benchmark score is 6078, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22237. The Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: What is the RTX A400's performance percentile?

A: The RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon 820M is at the 50th percentile. This suggests the Radeon 820M, despite having no direct benchmark scores, occupies a higher relative position based on its classification.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the RTX A400 in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% higher), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% higher).

Q: What are the memory configurations of each product?

A: The Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which product has a higher thermal design power?

A: The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, while the Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The RTX A400 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the Radeon 820M has no suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 820M is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node using RDNA 3.5 architecture, representing the Navi III IGP generation designed for Strix Point Mobile. In contrast, the RTX A400 uses Samsung's 8 nm process with Ampere architecture from the Workstation Ampere generation. The manufacturing process difference is significant: the Radeon 820M uses a more advanced 4 nm node, while the RTX A400 uses the older 8 nm node. The RTX A400 has a known die size of 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors and a transistor density of 43.5M per mm², while the Radeon 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 raster operation units, and 2 ray tracing cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and adds 24 tensor cores, which the Radeon 820M lacks entirely. The Radeon 820M's FP32 performance is 716.8 GFLOPS, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, a roughly 3.8 times higher raw compute throughput.

Clock behavior also differs. The Radeon 820M operates at a base clock of 400 MHz with a boost of 2800 MHz, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The memory subsystems are entirely different: the Radeon 820M shares system memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," whereas the RTX A400 has dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, delivering 96.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon 820M is an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors, while the RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm, also with no power connectors. The Radeon 820M's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records benchmark scores only for the RTX A400, with no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons available between the two products. The RTX A400's recorded scores provide a profile of its performance across various test suites. In Geekbench, the OpenCL score is 22844 and the Vulkan score is 22237. The Passmark suite shows scores of 32 for DirectX 10, 37 for DirectX 11, 27 for DirectX 12, and 87 for DirectX 9. The 2D graphics score is 899, the 3D graphics score is 5983, and the GPU compute score is 2557.

The RTX A400's average benchmark score of 6078 places it near several comparable products. The GeForce MX230 scores 6077, essentially identical with a 0% delta. The Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% lower. The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, which is 0.6% higher. The Radeon 760M scores 6019, which is 1% lower. This clustering indicates the RTX A400 performs within a narrow band of mid-range mobile and workstation GPUs.

Since the Radeon 820M has no benchmark scores, no direct numerical comparison can be made. The Radeon 820M's percentile ranking of 50 versus the RTX A400's 35 suggests that the Radeon 820M may hold a higher relative position in the database, but without recorded scores, this remains a classification-based observation rather than a measured result.

Specification Differences

The process nodes differ: the Radeon 820M uses 4 nm TSMC, while the RTX A400 uses 8 nm Samsung. The RTX A400 has known transistor data (8,700 million, 200 mm², 43.5M per mm²), while the Radeon 820M's are unknown. Clock speeds: the Radeon 820M has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost; the RTX A400 has 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: system shared versus 4 GB GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: the Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores; the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. Pixel rate: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 22.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance: 716.8 GFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, both with 1:1 FP16 ratios.

TDP: 15 W versus 50 W. The RTX A400 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W; the Radeon 820M has none. Form factor: IGP versus single-slot card with dimensions of 163 mm by 69 mm. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates: the Radeon 820M released on 2025-02-28, while the RTX A400 released on 2024-04-15. Predecessors differ: Navi II IGP versus Quadro Turing. The RTX A400 has a successor listed as Workstation Ada; the Radeon 820M has none.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear specification gap. The RTX A400 delivers substantially higher compute resources: 768 shading units versus 128, 2.706 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS, and dedicated GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory. These differences indicate the RTX A400 is designed for workstation tasks requiring sustained, dedicated graphics processing, while the Radeon 820M serves as an integrated solution for portable devices.

The RTX A400's benchmark scores, while unremarkable at the 35th percentile, demonstrate measurable performance in the 6000 average score range, close to the GeForce MX230 and Quadro P2000. The Radeon 820M's 50th percentile classification, despite having no recorded scores, suggests the database ranks it competitively, but this ranking lacks empirical benchmark backing.

The RTX A400 supports 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, while the Radeon 820M's outputs depend entirely on the host portable device. The RTX A400's 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU indicates a modest power requirement for a discrete card, while the Radeon 820M's 15 W TDP fits the constraints of integrated mobile graphics.

Users seeking a discrete, single-slot workstation card with dedicated memory and tensor cores should consider the RTX A400. Users requiring an integrated solution with lower power consumption for portable devices should consider the Radeon 820M, though its performance remains unquantified in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in all measured benchmark categories, given that it has recorded scores and the Radeon 820M does not. Its Passmark 3D score of 5983 and GPU compute score of 2557 indicate capability in graphics and compute workloads. The presence of 24 tensor cores gives the RTX A400 an advantage in AI-accelerated tasks, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon 820M.

The Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 4 nm process node is more advanced, and its 15 W TDP is one-third of the RTX A400's 50 W. As an IGP, it requires no additional slot space, no power connectors, and no dedicated cooling beyond what the portable device provides. Its 2800 MHz boost clock is substantially higher than the RTX A400's 1762 MHz, though this does not translate into higher throughput given the far lower core count.

For workstation deployment with multiple displays, the RTX A400's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory make it the clear choice. For thin-and-light mobile devices where power draw and physical footprint are constraints, the Radeon 820M's integrated design wins by eliminating the need for a discrete card.

The RTX A400's release in April 2024 and its successor designation of Workstation Ada suggest it is a current-generation product, while the Radeon 820M's February 2025 release makes it newer. The Radeon 820M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, indicating a direct lineage in integrated graphics. The RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing, showing its workstation heritage.

In compute-heavy environments, the RTX A400's FP32 output of 2.706 TFLOPS and texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s provide measurable headroom. In power-constrained mobile scenarios, the Radeon 820M's 15 W envelope and system-shared memory model align with the constraints of portable hardware. The data does not support a single winner across all use cases; the choice depends on whether the requirement is discrete workstation capability or integrated mobile efficiency.