Radeon 820M vs GeForce GTX 760M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 760M and Radeon 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
820M outperforms 760M by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 725 | 672 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.70 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 June 2024 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 657 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 657 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 42.05 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.009 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 7500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | no data |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | no data |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 39
−15.4%
| 45−50
+15.4%
|
| Full HD | 46
−19.6%
| 55−60
+19.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 98
+18.1%
|
80−85
−18.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−15.6%
|
35−40
+15.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−18.2%
|
50−55
+18.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 760M and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 820M is 15% faster in 900p
- Radeon 820M is 20% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 760M is 18% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 820M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 760M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Radeon 820M performs better in 50 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.88 | 4.68 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
Radeon 820M has a 20.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 760M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
