Radeon 820M vs RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with Radeon 820M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 11 outperforms 820M by a whopping 288% 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 | 656 | 1053 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.88 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | Raven | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (7 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 | 704 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 44 | 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 | IGP | no data |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 7500 MHz |
| 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 | Motherboard Dependent | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 | 28
+300%
| 7−8
−300%
|
| 1440p | 6
+500%
| 1−2
−500%
|
| 4K | 12
+300%
| 3−4
−300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Fortnite | 86
+2050%
|
4−5
−2050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
+360%
|
10−11
−360%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| God of War | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 11 is 500% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 2050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 11 surpassed Radeon 820M in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.00 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
RX Vega 11 has a 287.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 820M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 820M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 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.
