AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce 820A Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics takes the only head-to-head victory, winning the single available comparison in Geekbench OpenCL by a substantial margin. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A does not win any recorded benchmark in this comparison, making the use-case split straightforward: AMD leads in raw compute workloads, while NVIDIA's case rests on architectural traits rather than measured performance.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD part sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part lands at the 19th percentile. That gap is modest in absolute terms, but the head-to-head result is not. For OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics delivers 5183 points versus 2983 points for the GeForce 820A, a 73.8% advantage. This positions AMD clearly ahead for general-purpose GPU compute, scientific workloads, or any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration.

The GeForce 820A, despite losing the compute benchmark, still has a role. Its nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GTX 860M, GeForce GTX 750 Ti, Quadro P600, and even the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB, all within a narrow 2.4% band of its average score. That clustering suggests the 820A's performance profile is recognizable and consistent, even if unspectacular. For legacy DirectX 11 applications or scenarios where NVIDIA's driver ecosystem matters, the 820A could still function adequately, though the data does not show a single workload where it beats AMD.

The AMD part also has a Vulkan score of 2582 in the database, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded Vulkan result. That absence matters for modern API compatibility, but it does not change the win count. Simply put, AMD wins the only direct comparison, and the use-case recommendation follows: choose the Radeon R5 Graphics for compute-oriented tasks, and consider the GeForce 820A only if NVIDIA-specific software support is required.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983. AMD leads by 73.8%, which is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: Does the GeForce 820A win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 1 win for AMD and 0 wins for NVIDIA. The only recorded comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to AMD.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 2582. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD part's average score of 3883 is within 1.3% of the GeForce MX110 (3834) and within 1.2% of the Quadro 2000D (3930). The NVIDIA part's average of 2983 is within 0.5% of the GTX 860M (2967) and within 2.4% of the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913).

Q: Which GPU has better memory specifications?

A: The GeForce 820A has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The NVIDIA GeForce 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a lower feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983. That is a 73.8% advantage for AMD, a margin that dwarfs the differences seen in either GPU's nearest-rival clusters.

To put that score in context, the AMD part's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 3883. The GeForce 820A's average is 2983, a full 900 points lower. The nearest rivals for AMD include the Quadro 2000 (3898, just 0.4% higher), Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.9% higher), and Quadro 2000D (3930, 1.2% higher). On the NVIDIA side, the closest competitors are the GTX 860M (2967, 0.5% lower), GTX 750 Ti (2953, 1.0% lower), Quadro P600 (2923, 2.1% lower), and RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913, 2.4% lower). In other words, the AMD part performs like a mid-range workstation GPU from several generations ago, while the NVIDIA part performs like a low-end mobile chip.

The OpenCL result also highlights the compute gap. AMD's 5183 score comes from 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with an FP32 throughput of 388.1 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with FP32 at 240.0 GFLOPS. The raw shading unit count (256 versus 96) and FP32 rate (388.1 versus 240.0) align with the 73.8% benchmark delta. The NVIDIA GPU's extra ROPs (8 versus 4) and higher pixel rate (2.500 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s, actually lower for NVIDIA) do not compensate in compute workloads.

There is no recorded Vulkan head-to-head, but AMD's standalone Vulkan score of 2582 suggests it would likely extend its lead in modern API workloads. The GeForce 820A lacks any Vulkan support in the database, which further limits its appeal for current applications. The bottom line from the data: if you need compute performance, AMD wins by a wide margin, and no benchmark in the database shows NVIDIA ahead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A uses 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. Transistor density is 9.8M per mm² for AMD versus 5.0M per mm² for NVIDIA. Both are built on a 28 nm process, but AMD uses GlobalFoundries while NVIDIA uses TSMC.

Shading units favor AMD heavily: 256 versus 96. TMUs are equal at 16 each, but ROPs favor NVIDIA at 8 versus 4. Pixel rate goes to AMD at 3.032 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate also favors AMD at 12.13 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 388.1 GFLOPS for AMD versus 240.0 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The AMD part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA part has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s. The memory clock for NVIDIA is listed at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. AMD's memory clock is simply described as "System Shared."

The bus interface also separates them: AMD is an IGP with no external bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for AMD and portable device dependent for NVIDIA. Power connectors are listed as none for NVIDIA, while AMD has no power connector field specified. Both are rated at 15 W TDP and both are end-of-life products. Release dates differ, with NVIDIA launching earlier (March 2014) and AMD following later (September 2014). The predecessor and successor chains also differ: AMD's predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP with a GCN 3.0 IGP successor, while NVIDIA's predecessor is GeForce 700A with a GeForce 900A successor.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. AMD's Radeon R5 Graphics is based on GCN 2.0, specifically the Spectre SL chip, which represents the Kaveri generation of integrated graphics. NVIDIA's GeForce 820A uses Fermi 2.0, built on the GF117 chip, part of the GeForce 800A generation. These are fundamentally different designs from different eras of GPU development.

GCN 2.0 is a compute-first architecture that scaled well with shading unit counts. The Spectre SL chip packs 2,410 million transistors, a high count for an integrated part, and supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Fermi 2.0, by contrast, is an older architecture originally designed for discrete GPUs, with 585 million transistors and DirectX 12 (11_0) support. Notably, the GeForce 820A has no Vulkan support listed in the database, while AMD's part supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The transistor budget tells the story. AMD uses 2,410 million transistors versus NVIDIA's 585 million, a 4.1x difference. That explains the shading unit disparity (256 versus 96) and the FP32 gap (388.1 versus 240.0 GFLOPS). NVIDIA compensates with more ROPs (8 versus 4) and dedicated memory, but the compute architecture is simply less capable.

Foundry choice also differs: AMD uses GlobalFoundries, NVIDIA uses TSMC, both at 28 nm. The die size difference (245 mm² versus 116 mm²) reflects the transistor count gap. AMD's transistor density of 9.8M per mm² is nearly double NVIDIA's 5.0M per mm², indicating a denser design.

The memory architecture is a core difference. AMD's system-shared memory means the GPU borrows from the CPU's RAM, with bandwidth varying by platform. NVIDIA's dedicated 1024 MB DDR3 with 16.02 GB/s is fixed but limited. For compute workloads, AMD's approach allows larger working sets if system RAM is plentiful, while NVIDIA's 1 GB cap could bottleneck larger datasets.

API support also diverges. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), the full feature level, while NVIDIA only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan is present on AMD but absent on NVIDIA. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. These differences mean AMD is more future-proof for modern games and compute APIs, while NVIDIA's part is locked to older software paths.

Both GPUs are end-of-life, but their architectural lineages differ: AMD's successor is GCN 3.0 IGP, while NVIDIA's successor is GeForce 900A. The recorded data consistently shows AMD's architecture delivering more compute performance, and the 73.8% OpenCL lead reflects that design gap.