AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 780M compare to the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU in terms of compute performance?

A: The Radeon 780M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS. The 780M has a 4.762 TFLOPS advantage in raw FP32 throughput, more than double the Z2 Go's output.

Q: What are the architectural differences between these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 780M uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. The 780M is built on the Phoenix chip (25,390 million transistors, 178 mm² die size), whereas the Z2 Go uses the Rembrandt+ chip (13,100 million transistors, 208 mm² die size).

Q: Do both GPUs have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both have identical core counts: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 raster output pipelines, and 12 ray tracing cores. The key differences lie in clock speeds and architecture generation.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs support?

A: The Radeon 780M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU features 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Radeon 780M has a 15 W TDP, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 780M boosts to 2900 MHz, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU boosts to 2700 MHz. The 780M also has a higher pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s compared to 86.40 GPixel/s for the Z2 Go.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon 780M and Ryzen Z2 Go GPU represent two distinct generations of AMD integrated graphics. The 780M is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, the newest design of the two, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. This generational gap explains much of the performance difference.

The chip designs differ substantially. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip with 25,390 million transistors packed into a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip with 13,100 million transistors spread across a larger 208 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 63.0M per mm². The 780M packs nearly twice the transistors into a smaller area.

Clock behavior also separates the two. Both share the same 800 MHz base clock, but the 780M boosts to 2900 MHz versus 2700 MHz for the Z2 Go. The 780M's higher boost clock, combined with its newer architecture, produces a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s. The Z2 Go trails with 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s.

FP16 compute reveals an interesting architectural choice. The 780M achieves 8.909 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes both formats at equal throughput. The Z2 Go reaches 8.294 TFLOPS in FP16 but does so with a 2:1 ratio, indicating its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. The 780M's FP32 performance of 8.909 TFLOPS is far ahead of the Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The 780M relies on system shared memory, with its bandwidth dependent on the host system's configuration. The Z2 Go GPU includes 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with fixed 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Z2 Go also records its memory clock at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective transfer rate. The 780M's memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 780M connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Z2 Go's bus interface is not specified. Display outputs also differ: the 780M is motherboard dependent, while the Z2 Go lists a single USB Type-C output. The 780M is an IGP with no slot width; the Z2 Go does not specify slot width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct benchmark comparisons are limited because the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The Radeon 780M, however, has three recorded tests: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18602, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33683. The Z2 Go's benchmark array is empty, so no head-to-head scores exist for direct comparison.

The 780M's average benchmark score of 17588 places it at the 61st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 with an average score of 17551 (0.2% behind the 780M), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17639 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17509 (0.5% behind). These narrow margins show the 780M sits in a tight competitive cluster around the 17500 to 17700 score range.

The Z2 Go GPU's average benchmark score is recorded as 0 with a 50th percentile ranking, and it has no nearest rivals listed. This absence of measured data means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance. What can be analyzed is the theoretical compute ceiling from its specifications.

The FP32 gap is decisive. The 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS is 4.762 TFLOPS higher than the Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS. That represents a 114.8% advantage in raw shader throughput. In practical terms, workloads that scale with FP32 compute will see roughly double the throughput on the 780M.

Pixel and texture rates reinforce this pattern. The 780M fills 92.80 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s for the Z2 Go, a 6.40 GPixel/s difference. Texture fill shows 139.2 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, a 9.6 GTexel/s gap. These differences are smaller than the FP32 gap because both GPUs share identical core counts (768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs), and the Z2 Go's lower clocks are partially offset by its dedicated memory.

The 780M's 12 ray tracing cores match the Z2 Go's 12 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, so ray tracing features are present on both, but the 780M's higher clocks and newer RDNA 3.0 architecture should provide better ray tracing throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 780M | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Phoenix | Rembrandt+ |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Phoenix) | Console GPU (AMD) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 13,100 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 63.0M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | 2700 MHz |

| Memory Type | System Shared | LPDDR5 |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 102.4 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 92.80 GPixel/s | 86.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 129.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.909 TFLOPS | 4.147 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x USB Type-C |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2024-12-31 |

The two GPUs share identical core counts: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. They also use the same base clock of 800 MHz and support identical API versions. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 780M holds the advantage in nearly every measured or specified performance category. Its FP32 throughput of 8.909 TFLOPS is more than double the Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, GPGPU tasks, and shader-intensive games. Its higher boost clock of 2900 MHz versus 2700 MHz and newer RDNA 3.0 architecture give it superior pixel and texture fill rates. The 780M also draws less power at 15 W TDP versus 28 W TDP, which matters for thermally constrained systems like thin laptops or handhelds. Its 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms it outperforms roughly three-fifths of the database's tracked GPUs.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins on memory configuration. Its 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed, guaranteed resource. The 780M depends entirely on system shared memory, so its effective bandwidth varies with the host platform's memory setup. For workloads that need consistent, dedicated memory bandwidth, the Z2 Go's configuration is more predictable. The Z2 Go also has a smaller FP32-to-FP16 advantage: its 2:1 ratio means FP16 workloads reach 8.294 TFLOPS, close to the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS FP16 output. The Z2 Go's single USB Type-C display output is a specific, defined connection, whereas the 780M's outputs depend entirely on the motherboard implementation.

The 780M's higher transistor count (25,390 million versus 13,100 million) and higher transistor density (142.6M per mm² versus 63.0M per mm²) indicate a more complex, modern design. Its 4 nm process versus 6 nm contributes to both its performance advantage and lower power draw.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon 780M for raw performance. It doubles the Z2 Go's FP32 compute, delivers higher pixel and texture fill rates, uses a newer architecture, draws nearly half the power, and holds a 61st percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 17588. Its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, sit within 0.4% of its average score, placing it in established desktop-class territory. For gaming, rendering, or any FP32-heavy workload, the 780M is the stronger GPU.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU offers a different trade-off. Its 16 GB dedicated LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s fixed bandwidth provides memory consistency that the shared-memory 780M cannot guarantee. Its FP16 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS approaches the 780M's 8.909 TFLOPS, making it competitive for FP16-oriented tasks. However, its 50th percentile ranking, empty benchmark record, and 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 ceiling limit its appeal for demanding applications. The Z2 Go also consumes 28 W, nearly double the 780M's 15 W.

The release dates place the 780M earlier (2024-01-30) than the Z2 Go (2024-12-31), but chronological order does not favor the newer part here. The Z2 Go's RDNA 2.0 architecture is a step behind the 780M's RDNA 3.0. The 780M is the appropriate selection for users prioritizing compute performance, efficiency, and established benchmark data. The Z2 Go suits scenarios where fixed 16 GB memory capacity and guaranteed bandwidth outweigh raw shader throughput. Both are active production parts, but the 780M is the one with measurable results to back its specifications.