Radeon 820M vs RX 460
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 460 with Radeon 820M, including specs and performance data.
RX 460 outperforms 820M by a whopping 657% 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 | 475 | 1053 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.93 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 2 June 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 896 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1090 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 67.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.15 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 7500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 41
+720%
| 5−6
−720%
|
| 1440p | 50
+733%
| 6−7
−733%
|
| 4K | 20
+900%
| 2−3
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.10 | no data |
| 1440p | 1.72 | no data |
| 4K | 4.30 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Fortnite | 116
+2800%
|
4−5
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+613%
|
8−9
−613%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+185%
|
30−35
−185%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+397%
|
30−33
−397%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+689%
|
9−10
−689%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Fortnite | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+575%
|
8−9
−575%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+185%
|
30−35
−185%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+689%
|
9−10
−689%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+683%
|
12−14
−683%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+750%
|
6−7
−750%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+2080%
|
5−6
−2080%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how RX 460 and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- RX 460 is 720% faster in 1080p
- RX 460 is 733% faster in 1440p
- RX 460 is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 460 is 3400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 460 surpassed Radeon 820M in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.77 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 8 August 2016 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
RX 460 has a 657.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 820M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 820M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 460 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 820M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
