AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Steam Machine GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 880M and the AMD Steam Machine GPU. The 880M has a full set of recorded scores, while the Steam Machine GPU currently has no benchmark entries. This absence of matched testing data is itself informative: it indicates the Steam Machine GPU is either too newly listed in the database or has not yet undergone the standardized test suite.

The Radeon 880M delivers measurable results across multiple APIs. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 535. Geekbench results show an OpenCL score of 31285 and a Vulkan score of 40006. Passmark scores include 31 for DirectX 10, 73 for DirectX 11, 32 for DirectX 12, and 97 for DirectX 9. The 2D graphics test yields 969, while the 3D graphics test reaches 7615. Compute performance sits at 3719 in Passmark GPU Compute.

The 880M's average benchmark score is 8436, placing it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals bracket this figure tightly. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX averages 8427, a delta of 0.1 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 averages 8458, a delta of -0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M averages 8462, also -0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X averages 8325, a delta of 1.3 percent. These margins are narrow, indicating the 880M sits in a crowded performance band where single-digit percentage differences separate it from older discrete mobile GPUs.

The Steam Machine GPU has no scores to compare. Its percentile is listed as 50, but with an average benchmark score of zero, that percentile reflects no actual measured performance. The absence of data prevents any quantitative head-to-head analysis.

FAQ

Q: Does the Steam Machine GPU have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Steam Machine GPU has an empty benchmarks list and an average benchmark score of zero.

Q: What is the Radeon 880M's best recorded test result?

A: Its highest single score is the Geekbench Vulkan result of 40006, followed by an OpenCL score of 31285. Among Passmark tests, the 3D graphics score of 7615 is the strongest.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The 880M averages 8436, which is 0.1 percent above the GTX 675MX, 0.3 percent below the MX330, 0.3 percent below the HD 8870M, and 1.3 percent above the R9 M375X.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The Steam Machine GPU lists a 50th percentile, while the Radeon 880M lists a 43rd percentile. However, the Steam Machine GPU's percentile is based on no measured scores, so the ranking is not backed by benchmark data.

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: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Radeon 880M uses a chip with 34,000 million transistors, while the Steam Machine GPU uses a chip with 13,300 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations. The Radeon 880M uses RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and its chip is codenamed Strix Point. The Steam Machine GPU uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The 880M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point mobile, while the Steam Machine GPU is classified as a Console GPU for Valve.

The 880M integrates 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. It carries 12 ray tracing cores. The Steam Machine GPU scales up substantially: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 28 ray tracing cores. That means the Steam Machine GPU has 2.33 times the shading units, 2.33 times the TMUs, 4 times the ROPs, and 2.33 times the ray tracing cores.

Transistor density differs sharply despite the same foundry. The 880M packs 145.9 million transistors per square millimeter across a 233 mm² die, totaling 34,000 million transistors. The Steam Machine GPU has 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter across a 204 mm² die, totaling 13,300 million transistors. The 880M's smaller process node allows far higher density, but the Steam Machine GPU still delivers more raw compute resources per chip.

Memory architecture is another major split. The 880M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM. The Steam Machine GPU has dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the Steam Machine GPU a fixed memory bandwidth independent of the host platform.

The 880M's clocks run at a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The Steam Machine GPU runs at a 1720 MHz base, 2450 MHz boost, and a 2250 MHz game clock. Despite the lower boost frequency, the Steam Machine GPU's wider execution resources produce far higher throughput figures. Pixel rate reaches 156.8 GPixel/s on the Steam Machine GPU versus 46.40 GPixel/s on the 880M. Texture rate reaches 274.4 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute reaches 17.56 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS. Both deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 numbers.

Specification Differences

The Steam Machine GPU uses a 6 nm process; the Radeon 880M uses a 4 nm process. Both come from TSMC. Transistor counts are 13,300 million for the Steam Machine GPU and 34,000 million for the 880M. Die sizes are 204 mm² and 233 mm² respectively. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² versus 145.9M per mm².

Clock behavior differs across all measured points. The 880M has a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The Steam Machine GPU has a 1720 MHz base, 2450 MHz boost, and a 2250 MHz game clock. The Steam Machine GPU also lists a memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the 880M marks memory as system shared.

Memory configuration is a decisive difference. The Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 880M has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Steam Machine GPU's display outputs are specified as 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1; the 880M's outputs are portable device dependent.

Compute resources differ in every category. The Steam Machine GPU has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. Pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance are all multiples of the 880M's figures.

Thermal design power is 110 W for the Steam Machine GPU versus 15 W for the 880M. The 880M is an IGP with no slot width and no power connectors. The Steam Machine GPU has no slot width listed but has physical dimensions: 156 mm length, 152 mm height, and 162 mm width. The 880M lists no physical dimensions. The 880M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface; the Steam Machine GPU has no bus interface listed.

Release dates are far apart. The 880M launched on July 14, 2024. The Steam Machine GPU carries a release date of June 28, 2026. Both are marked as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products. The Radeon 880M is a low power integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, designed for portable devices where space and power are constrained. It has measured scores across the full benchmark suite, an average of 8436, and sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs. It competes with older discrete mobile parts like the GTX 675MX and MX330, trading blows within fractions of a percent.

The Steam Machine GPU is a discrete console GPU with a 110 W TDP, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and roughly four times the compute resources on paper. Its FP32 throughput of 17.56 TFLOPS dwarfs the 880M's 4.454 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s is over three times the 880M's 46.40 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 274.4 GTexel/s is nearly double the 880M's 139.2 GTexel/s. The gap in raw specifications is enormous.

Yet the Steam Machine GPU has zero benchmark scores. The database records no measured performance, no average score, and no rival comparisons. Its 50th percentile figure rests on no test data. The 880M's 43rd percentile is grounded in ten recorded test results. For any quantitative comparison, the 880M is the only one of the two with verified performance data.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 880M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Steam Machine GPU's 110 W. It requires no power connectors, occupies no expansion slot, and uses system shared memory, which suits thin portable devices. Its 4 nm process and 145.9M transistors per mm² density show a design focused on fitting substantial capability into a minimal footprint. It has a complete set of benchmark results, confirming it can hold its own against a narrow field of older discrete mobile GPUs.

The Steam Machine GPU wins in theoretical compute capacity. Every execution resource metric favors it: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth removes dependence on system memory performance. Its 110 W TDP indicates a part designed for sustained console-style workloads rather than battery-constrained portable use. Its physical dimensions of 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm suggest a standalone card or console module rather than an embedded IGP.

The architecture generations also split priorities. The 880M uses newer RDNA 3.5 on a smaller node, but the Steam Machine GPU compensates with much larger execution arrays on RDNA 3.0. The 880M's higher boost clock of 2900 MHz cannot close the gap created by 1792 shading units versus 768. The Steam Machine GPU's lower 2450 MHz boost still produces over three times the FP32 throughput.

For benchmark-driven buyers, the 880M is the only option with recorded evidence. For those prioritizing raw specification headroom, the Steam Machine GPU offers the stronger theoretical profile. The data cannot confirm how that profile translates into real test scores, since none exist. The Steam Machine GPU's future benchmark entries will determine whether its specification advantage becomes a measured one, but as of now, the database holds no such verification.