Radeon 820M vs GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile and Radeon 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5060 Mobile outperforms 820M by a whopping 3418% 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 | 87 | 1047 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 76.72 | no data |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | GB206 | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 May 2025 (less than a year 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 | 3328 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 952 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,900 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 151.3 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.684 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | no data |
| TMUs | 104 | no data |
| Tensor Cores | 104 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 26 | 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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | no data |
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 | GDDR7 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 7500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | - |
| CUDA | 12.0 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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:
| Full HD | 98
+4800%
| 2−3
−4800%
|
| 1440p | 50
+4900%
| 1−2
−4900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+3429%
|
7−8
−3429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+3567%
|
3−4
−3567%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+3429%
|
7−8
−3429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+3567%
|
3−4
−3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+3860%
|
5−6
−3860%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+3440%
|
5−6
−3440%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+14100%
|
1−2
−14100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1789%
|
9−10
−1789%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+3571%
|
7−8
−3571%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+3429%
|
7−8
−3429%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+823%
|
30−33
−823%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+3567%
|
3−4
−3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+3860%
|
5−6
−3860%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+3440%
|
5−6
−3440%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+14100%
|
1−2
−14100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+13600%
|
1−2
−13600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 110−120
+5550%
|
2−3
−5550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1789%
|
9−10
−1789%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+3571%
|
7−8
−3571%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+3567%
|
3−4
−3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+3550%
|
4−5
−3550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+3440%
|
5−6
−3440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1789%
|
9−10
−1789%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 190−200
+3860%
|
5−6
−3860%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+6100%
|
2−3
−6100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+3950%
|
8−9
−3950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 104
+5100%
|
2−3
−5100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+6900%
|
1−2
−6900%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+3500%
|
8−9
−3500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4500%
|
3−4
−4500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 120−130
+4100%
|
3−4
−4100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+600%
|
14−16
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+3829%
|
7−8
−3829%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+3400%
|
2−3
−3400%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
This is how RTX 5060 Mobile and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- RTX 5060 Mobile is 4800% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5060 Mobile is 4900% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 5060 Mobile is 14100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 5060 Mobile surpassed Radeon 820M in all 19 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.33 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 20 May 2025 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
RTX 5060 Mobile has a 3418.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.
Radeon 820M, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 820M 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.
