Radeon 820M vs R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) and Radeon 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms 820M by a considerable 40% 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 | 949 | 1053 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.05 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2 (2016) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 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 | 512 | 128 |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 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 |
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 bus width | 64/128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 7500 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | + |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | no data |
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 | 14
+40%
| 10−12
−40%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+12.1%
|
30−35
−12.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+12.1%
|
30−35
−12.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 (Bristol Ridge) and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 40% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) performs better in 36 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.80 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 39.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 820M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) 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.
