AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the AMD Radeon Vega 3 and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963 points against 3694 points for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, a 7.3% advantage. This is a clear but not overwhelming win for the AMD part. The delta places the Vega 3 ahead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, though the margin is modest enough that real-world differences could vary by application.

Context from the database's nearest rivals helps interpret this gap. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4268 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, averages 4282, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the Vega 3 essentially trades blows with that older discrete part. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile with an average score of 3694. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, averages 3717, a 0.6% delta in favor of the 825M. The 825M also compares closely with the AMD Radeon HD 6770, which averages 3649, a 1.2% gap in favor of the 825M.

The head-to-head result shows the Vega 3 winning the only directly comparable test. However, the database records only one shared benchmark, so the overall comparison is limited. The Vega 3's higher average score across all tests (4268 versus 3694) suggests broader strength, but that average includes different test mixes. The 825M has only one recorded benchmark entry, Geekbench OpenCL, while the Vega 3 also has Geekbench Metal and Geekbench Vulkan results. Those additional scores, 4880 for Metal and 3961 for Vulkan, show the Vega 3 performing consistently across multiple API frameworks, whereas the 825M's data is restricted to a single measurement.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses GCN 5.0 architecture on the Picasso chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. It integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses Kepler 2.0 architecture on the GK208 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, with a transistor density of 11.7 million per mm². The Vega 3's newer process node and larger die give it a clear density advantage, but the 825M's smaller, simpler chip has its own efficiency profile.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Vega 3 has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The 825M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In raw unit counts, the 825M doubles the Vega 3 in every category. However, clock speeds tell a different story. The Vega 3 runs at a 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while the 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The Vega 3's higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower unit count, but the 825M still leads in pixel rate and texture rate. The 825M achieves 7.528 GPixel/s and 30.11 GTexel/s, while the Vega 3 manages 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. In raw throughput, the 825M is ahead on both measures.

Floating-point performance flips the picture. The Vega 3 delivers 422.4 GFLOPS in FP32 and 844.8 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The 825M delivers 722.7 GFLOPS in FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The Vega 3's FP16 support is a notable architectural feature, allowing higher throughput in workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. The 825M's lack of FP16 support means it cannot exploit that path at all.

Memory architecture is another key split. The Vega 3 uses system-shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system. The 825M has dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. For the Vega 3, memory performance is system-dependent, meaning its effective bandwidth varies with the platform's RAM configuration. The 825M's fixed memory setup provides predictable performance but caps capacity at 1 GB. The Vega 3's shared memory can scale with system RAM but adds latency and contention with the CPU.

API support also differs. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 825M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Vega 3 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. This gives the Vega 3 access to more advanced rendering features and better modern API compatibility. The 825M's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is more limited, potentially constraining performance in titles that rely on 12_1 features.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins in the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 7.3% margin. It also has a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests, 4268 versus 3694, and a better percentile ranking at 25 versus 22. These numbers suggest the Vega 3 is the stronger compute part overall. Its FP16 support and higher boost clock make it better suited for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic or scale with clock speed. The Vega 3's newer architecture, GCN 5.0 versus Kepler 2.0, also gives it an edge in API compatibility, particularly with Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins on raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s is 71% higher than the Vega 3's 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s is more than double the Vega 3's 13.20 GTexel/s. These figures matter for fill-rate-bound workloads, such as heavy pixel shading or texture-heavy scenes. The 825M also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, giving it an advantage in parallel rasterization tasks. Its dedicated 1 GB of DDR3 memory with fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, unlike the Vega 3's system-dependent memory.

The use-case split is clear. The Vega 3 suits compute-oriented tasks, especially those that benefit from FP16 or modern API features. The 825M suits traditional graphics workloads, where fill rate and texture throughput dominate. For gaming, the 825M's higher pixel and texture rates could translate to better frame rates in older titles or lower resolutions. For general-purpose compute, the Vega 3's newer architecture and higher GFLOPS, particularly in FP16, make it the better choice. Neither part is a high-performance solution by current standards, but they serve different niches within the low-end mobile space.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (Picasso) | Kepler 2.0 (GK208) |

| Process Node | 12 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 12 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.20 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2019-11-19 | 2014-01-26 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4268 | 3694 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 25 | 22 |

The TDP difference is notable: the Vega 3 draws 15 W while the 825M draws 33 W. This makes the Vega 3 significantly more power-efficient, especially for an integrated part. The 825M, despite being older and larger in power draw, still delivers higher raw throughput in several metrics. The release dates also differ by nearly six years, with the Vega 3 launching in 2019 and the 825M in 2014. Both are end-of-life products, but the Vega 3 is from a much more recent generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 3963 against 3694 for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, a 7.3% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 averages 4268 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M averages 3694. The Vega 3 also ranks higher at the 25th percentile versus the 22nd percentile for the 825M.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 delivers 844.8 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s, compared to 4.400 GPixel/s for the AMD Radeon Vega 3.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W. Both use no power connectors and are integrated in their respective platforms.