AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon 820M and NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU occupy different corners of the mobile graphics landscape, yet both target low-power, integrated-class performance. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between them, but the specification sheets and recorded performance ceilings allow a structured comparison. The AMD part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for thin-and-light laptops, while the NVIDIA chip is a dedicated console GPU inside the Nintendo Switch 2. Their architectural pedigrees, memory subsystems, and compute resources diverge sharply, and the data shows clear winners in specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No benchmark results exist in the database for either GPU, so direct frame-rate comparisons are unavailable. Instead, the recorded fillrate, texture rate, and floating-point figures provide the measurable basis for comparison. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU matches that exact number at 22.40 GPixel/s? No, the data shows the NVIDIA part reaches 22.40 GPixel/s, exactly double the AMD figure. That 2.00x advantage in pixel fillrate means the Switch 2 GPU can drive higher resolutions or more complex pixel shading per frame without additional latency.

The texture rate gap is even wider. AMD Radeon 820M records 22.40 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU reaches 67.20 GTexel/s, a 3.00x margin. Texture-heavy scenes, such as detailed terrain, brickwork, or fabric, rely on texel throughput, and the NVIDIA part has a decisive lead here. The AMD IGP has 8 texture mapping units, while the Switch 2 GPU packs 48, a 6.00x difference in TMU count that explains the texture rate disparity.

Floating-point compute shows the largest proportional gap. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU outputs 4.301 TFLOPS, which is 4301 GFLOPS. That is exactly 6.00x higher. In FP16 workloads, AMD maintains 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while NVIDIA doubles its rate to 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a 12.00x advantage. The NVIDIA part also has 48 tensor cores, which AMD lacks entirely, giving it a hardware path for accelerated machine learning and DLSS-style upscaling, though the database does not list specific tensor performance figures.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, exactly double the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's boost of 1400 MHz. The AMD base clock is 400 MHz, versus NVIDIA's 561 MHz base. Higher clocks usually imply faster per-core execution, but the NVIDIA chip compensates with 1536 shading units versus AMD's 128, a 12.00x ratio. Even at half the boost clock, NVIDIA's raw shader count overwhelms AMD's throughput.

The memory subsystem heavily favors NVIDIA. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory with no dedicated allocation, and bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning it varies with the host laptop's RAM configuration. In a typical dual-channel DDR5 setup, shared bandwidth might approach similar figures, but the database records no fixed number, so the NVIDIA part's 102.4 GB/s is the only concrete bandwidth figure available. The AMD memory clock is also system-shared, while NVIDIA runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

Pixel rate ties at 22.40 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, but AMD's 11.20 GPixel/s is exactly half. ROP counts are 16 for NVIDIA versus 4 for AMD, a 4.00x difference. The RT core count is 2 for AMD and 12 for NVIDIA, a 6.00x lead. These hardware resources explain the fillrate and ray-tracing potential, though no ray-tracing benchmarks exist in the database.

The TDP envelope differs by 2.67x: AMD draws 15 W, while NVIDIA is rated at 40 W. That power budget allows NVIDIA to sustain higher shader utilization and memory bandwidth, but it also means the Switch 2 GPU is not suitable for fanless, ultra-portable designs. AMD's 15 W IGP fits into low-power laptops where cooling is minimal.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is the stronger performer in every measured compute category except clock speed. It leads in pixel rate (22.40 GPixel/s vs 11.20 GPixel/s), texture rate (67.20 GTexel/s vs 22.40 GTexel/s), FP32 throughput (4.301 TFLOPS vs 716.8 GFLOPS), and FP16 throughput (8.602 TFLOPS vs 716.8 GFLOPS). It also has more shading units (1536 vs 128), TMUs (48 vs 8), ROPs (16 vs 4), RT cores (12 vs 2), and tensor cores (48 vs 0). The memory bandwidth is fixed at 102.4 GB/s for NVIDIA, while AMD's is system-dependent, meaning it could be lower in many configurations.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins on power efficiency per clock: its boost clock of 2800 MHz is exactly double NVIDIA's 1400 MHz, and its 15 W TDP is 2.67x lower than NVIDIA's 40 W. For workloads that are latency-bound or clock-sensitive, the AMD part may respond faster per instruction, but the database does not include latency or per-clock IPC measurements. The higher clock speed does not translate into higher aggregate throughput because NVIDIA's shader count is 12.00x larger.

The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers 6.00x the FP32 compute, 3.00x the texture rate, and 2.00x the pixel rate of the AMD Radeon 820M. The AMD part is a capable IGP for basic 2D and light 3D tasks, but the NVIDIA chip is a full console-grade GPU with dedicated memory and tensor acceleration. The percentile rank for both is 50, meaning they sit at the midpoint of the database's GPU distribution, but that rank is computed from benchmark scores, and both have no recorded benchmarks, so the percentile is provisional.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint. At 15 W, it suits thin laptops, mini PCs, and fanless designs where a 40 W GPU would require active cooling and larger batteries. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is the highest recorded clock between the two, which helps for lightly threaded tasks or applications that do not scale across many shaders. The AMD part also uses system-shared memory, which eliminates the cost and complexity of dedicated VRAM, making it a simpler integration for budget laptops. It has no dedicated tensor cores, so AI workloads run on generic shaders, but for typical office productivity, video playback, and light photo editing, the 128 shading units are sufficient.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins in every performance-heavy category. Its 12 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth allows textures and geometry to stay on-chip, reducing stutter in open-world games. The 1536 shading units and 48 TMUs handle high-resolution textures and complex shaders with ease. The 12 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing, which AMD's 2 RT cores cannot match in intensity. The 48 tensor cores enable AI-based features such as DLSS, though the database does not list specific tensor performance or supported features beyond the core count. The 40 W TDP, while higher than AMD's, is still low for a console GPU, allowing the Nintendo Switch 2 to run portable with a battery.

For gaming at 1080p or lower, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice. For productivity and battery life, the AMD part is the pragmatic option. The data does not include any game-specific benchmarks, but the raw throughput ratios strongly indicate NVIDIA's dominance in 3D rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 820M has 128, a 12.00x difference.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M boosts to 2800 MHz, exactly double the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's 1400 MHz boost. The AMD base clock is 400 MHz, while NVIDIA's base is 561 MHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 102.4 GB/s from 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory, and its bandwidth is listed as system-dependent, so no fixed figure is recorded.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has tensor cores, with 48 of them. The AMD Radeon 820M has no tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M is rated at 15 W, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is rated at 40 W, making the AMD part 2.67x more power-efficient in terms of TDP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC. Its chip is called Krackan Point 2, and it belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The process node is 4 nm, which is smaller than NVIDIA's 8 nm Samsung process. The die size for AMD is unknown, while NVIDIA's GA10B die measures 200 mm². The AMD IGP integrates 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 RT cores, with no tensor cores. It uses system-shared memory, meaning the GPU borrows from the host's RAM, and the memory bus width is also system-shared. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, and it has no power connectors, as it draws from the motherboard. Display outputs are listed as portable-device-dependent, meaning they vary by laptop.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm Samsung process. Its chip is GA10B, and it is classified as a Console GPU for Nintendo. The die size is 200 mm², which is recorded, while AMD's is unknown. It has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 48 tensor cores. Memory is dedicated: 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, running at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, yielding 102.4 GB/s. The TDP is 40 W, and the dimensions are 272 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 14 mm in width. It has no display outputs, as it is designed to feed a console's internal screen or dock. The bus interface is not listed, and it has no power connectors in the database.

The architectural split is clear: AMD relies on a small, high-clock IGP with shared memory and a newer 4 nm process, while NVIDIA uses a larger, lower-clock dedicated GPU with its own memory and a mature 8 nm process. The 4 nm node gives AMD a transistor density advantage, but the exact transistor counts are unknown for both. The NVIDIA chip compensates with more than 10x the shader hardware.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware spec. The process node is 4 nm (TSMC) for AMD and 8 nm (Samsung) for NVIDIA. Die size is unknown for AMD and 200 mm² for NVIDIA. The base clock is 400 MHz for AMD and 561 MHz for NVIDIA. The boost clock is 2800 MHz for AMD and 1400 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory size is system-shared for AMD and 12 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system-shared for AMD and LPDDR5X for NVIDIA. Bus width is system-shared for AMD and 128 bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is system-dependent for AMD and 102.4 GB/s for NVIDIA. Shading units are 128 for AMD and 1536 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 8 for AMD and 48 for NVIDIA. ROPs are 4 for AMD and 16 for NVIDIA. RT cores are 2 for AMD and 12 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are absent for AMD and 48 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s for AMD and 22.40 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s for AMD and 67.20 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 716.8 GFLOPS for AMD and 4.301 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD and 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) for NVIDIA. TDP is 15 W for AMD and 40 W for NVIDIA. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD and not listed for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for AMD and none for NVIDIA. The release date is 2025-02-28 for AMD and 2025-06-04 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, which applies to the console it ships in, while AMD has no launch MSRP. The AMD part has a predecessor listed as Navi II IGP, while NVIDIA has no predecessor. Both are marked as Active in production status.