AMD Zen 5 Strix Point iGPU analysis - Radeon 890M versus Intel Arc Graphics, Apple M3 and Qualcomm Adreno X1-85

While the old Radeon 780M was based on RDNA-3 architecture, the Radeon 890M and the less-powerful Radeon 880M use RDNA-3.5 architecture. According to AMD, this brings quite a few advantages over the old Radeon 780M, including improved efficiency (performance per watt), optimized memory usage and better runtimes.

The new Radeon 890M now features 16 CU cores with a maximum clock rate of 2.9 GHz, while the Radeon 880M has 12 CU cores (also 2.9 GHz) and corresponds to the configuration of the old Radeon 780M. However, the latter only had a maximum clock rate of 2.8 GHz or, in most cases, 2.7 GHz. As we have seen in the past, its performance will also depend heavily on the RAM configuration. We have already had a chance to test the Radeon 890M inside three devices, all with fast LDPPR5x-7500 RAM. We have not yet had the chance to test the Radeon 880M (in combination with the Ryzen AI 9 365).

Inside the Zenbook S 16, the TDP value for the new Zen 5 APU is 33/28 watts, while the Radeon 890M in the two ProArt models isn't limited. According to the two tools GPU-Z and HWiNFO, the iGPU's maximum consumption is up to 46 watts. The Adrenalin driver version 24.10.18.08 was used for the tests.

In order to create a meaningful comparison between the different graphics cards, we took a look at their power consumption in addition to their pure performance during synthetic benchmarks, from which we then determined their efficiency. Our consumption measurements are always carried out on an external display so that we can eliminate the different internal displays as influencing factors. Still, we also measured the test system's overall consumption and didn't just rely on the pure TDP values.

Now to start with the synthetic benchmarks, namely the new Steel Nomad tests from 3DMark. These also run natively on the Snapdragon laptops, so they should give us an accurate comparison. However, as this benchmark is still relatively new, we don't yet have all too many comparison values from older GPUs in our database. We used the new ROG Ally X with LPDDR5x-7500 RAM as a reference for the old Radeon 780M, as this is the fastest version of the 780M. In comparison, the new 890M was between 7-15 % faster (and 8-18 % faster in the Light test). The Intel Arc Graphics with 8 Xe cores was 26 % faster in the normal test but in the Light test, they performed the same. In both cases, the Adreno X1-85 was outperformed. 

AMD was able to improve again in the 3DMark Time Spy test and we noted a lead of 7-13 % over the 780M inside the ROG Ally X. As a result, AMD was able to almost completely close the gap to the Intel Arc Graphics, but Intel still kept the lead.

The Wildlife Extreme Unlimited test runs natively on all of the GPUs in this comparison, so it is a very good way to compare them. The Radeon 890M was 15-28 % faster than the Radeon 780M and also faster than the Intel Arc Graphics with 8 Xe cores. Apple's small M3 GPU with 8 cores was also beaten, but the other variants of the M3 GPU and the new M4 GPU were faster. The Adreno X1-85 came 8-18 % behind.

The GFXBench tests also run natively on all GPUs. However, the new 890M didn't perform as well here. Although it boasted a significant improvement (up to ~30 %) in OpenGL performance compared to the 780M, this was only enough to leave the Intel Arc Graphics with 7 Xe cores behind, whereas all other GPUs were faster.

When it came to OpenCL performance during Geekbench, we noted an improvement of up to 40 % compared to the old 780M. This means that the new 890M was able to overtake the M3 Pro GPU with 14 cores and was also well ahead of all the other iGPUs. We also measured an improvement of up to 35 % in the Vulkan test and, once again, no other iGPU was able to keep up.

For the first gaming benchmarks, we limited ourselves to a small selection of games and comparison devices in order to be able to present a performance rating. We started with low details, using either a 1080p resolution or a lower resolution depending on the game. The exact settings are listed in our tech section. In addition to the iGPUs, we have also included the results of the Nvidia RTX 500 Ada, which is currently the slowest dedicated GPU of the Ada Lovelace generation and is even slower than the RTX 4050 Laptop GPU (the GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop in the Dell XPS 14 is even slightly slower in some cases due to its 30-watt TGP—but was not available for the tests).

At low details, all three variants of the Radeon 890M came ahead of the iGPU competition and its advantage over the fastest Radeon 780M inside the ROG Ally X in our database was 7-18 %. The Intel Arc Graphics in the XMG Evo 15 lagged behind the 890M by 6-15 %. The Qualcomm SoCs came quite clearly behind during this test (36-47 % slower).

However, the situation changed from medium details onwards, because the slower Radeon 890M of the Zenbook S 16 now did practically the same as the 780M—as did the Intel Arc Graphics. The two faster variants boasted a lead of around 18%, while the Adreno GPUs continued to lag behind.

At high details, the slower Radeon 890M's gaming performance ultimately fell behind the Radeon 780M inside the ROG Ally X and the Intel Arc Graphics (8 Xe cores), with a gap of 3-5 % in our tested games. The two faster variants were only 9-12 % faster than the 780M and Arc Graphics. The Qualcomm SoCs also lagged behind during this test, but it was able to reduce the gap somewhat.

In the highest settings with a 1080p resolution, the situation remained the same, as the slow Radeon 890M fell behind the fast variants of the 780M and Intel Arc Graphics once more. Even so, the two fast variants of the Radeon 890M still had a double-digit lead. 

We have used the game The Witcher 3 for quite some time for our efficiency analyses, which is why we are able to draw on a lot of comparative data. However, the new Radeon 890M's results were a little sobering, as the 28-watt version only delivered a minimal advantage over the old Radeon 780M. The Qualcomm Adreno X1-85 worked more efficiently, just like the Apple GPUs. If you take a look at the fast Radeon 890M, its efficiency drops rapidly.

We additionally examined the new Radeon 890M's performance at different power limits. We chose the values 15, 20, 28 and 35 watts and then carried out the Time Spy benchmark in each case. We also did this with the Radeon 780M and the Intel Arc Graphics (8 Xe cores). The details of the test systems can be found in the following table.

First of all, it is very clear that Intel Arc Graphics requires high TDP values in order to be able to compete. However, the new Radeon 890M performs well at low TDP values and offers 12% more performance than the Radeon 780M at 15 watts. At 20 watts the value is 10 %, at 28 and 35 watts it is 9 % each.