AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is unusual: the database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103. Neither part has an average benchmark score recorded, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The wins counter shows zero for each side, meaning there is no measured performance delta to report from direct comparisons.

What the data does provide is a full specification profile for both parts, and those figures imply enormous differences in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA part lists 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD part lists 2.560 TFLOPS. That is a ratio of roughly 11.4 to 1 in favor of the NVIDIA adapter. In FP16 work, the gap changes shape: NVIDIA lists 29.15 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while AMD lists 5.120 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part still leads by a factor near 5.7, but the AMD part's packed FP16 path narrows the relative deficit compared to FP32.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The RTX 4070 AD103 lists 455.4 GTexel/s against 40.00 GTexel/s for the Ryzen Z1 GPU, a lead of about 11.4 times. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA by a smaller margin: 158.4 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, roughly 7.9 times higher. Memory bandwidth is where the gap is most extreme. The NVIDIA card lists 504.2 GB/s from a 192-bit GDDR6X interface, while the AMD part lists 51.20 GB/s from a 64-bit LPDDR5 bus. That is a 9.8 times difference in raw bandwidth, which will constrain the AMD part in any bandwidth-sensitive workload regardless of compute headroom.

The absence of head-to-head runs means these are architectural and theoretical comparisons, not measured outcome comparisons. The database shows no benchmark scores, no percentile deltas, and no rival placements for either unit. Every conclusion drawn here must come from the specification fields, not from performance results. The data is clear about what each part is built to do, even if it does not quantify how they behave under the same test suite.

The Verdict

From the specification data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 is the overwhelmingly more capable graphics processor. Its 29.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 455.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth place it in a different performance class than the AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU, which lists 2.560 TFLOPS, 40.00 GTexel/s, and 51.20 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also carries 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists 4 RT cores and no tensor core count at all. For any workload that stresses shading, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the data points decisively to the NVIDIA adapter.

The AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU is not without its own advantages in the specification sheet. It draws 30 W against the NVIDIA part's 200 W, a 6.7 times difference in thermal design power. It uses no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card requires a 16-pin connector and a 550 W suggested power supply. The AMD part also has 16 GB of memory versus 12 GB, and it is built on a 4 nm process versus the NVIDIA part's 5 nm node. Those traits describe a low-power, embedded-style processor, not a desktop performance card.

The data does not support a single "winner" across all usage cases, because the two parts target different power envelopes and physical formats. The NVIDIA part is a dual-slot, 240 mm, 200 W desktop card with display outputs. The AMD part is a 280 mm, 30 W module with no display outputs at all. One is a self-contained graphics card; the other is a compute device that appears to require external output handling. The verdict from the measured fields: the RTX 4070 AD103 dominates in every raw compute metric, while the Ryzen Z1 GPU wins on efficiency, memory capacity, and physical simplicity.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 wins in all raw performance categories recorded in the database. FP32 compute is 11.4 times higher, texture rate is 11.4 times higher, pixel rate is 7.9 times higher, and memory bandwidth is 9.8 times higher. It also has 5888 shading units against 256, 184 TMUs against 16, 64 ROPs against 8, 46 RT cores against 4, and 184 tensor cores against none listed. The 12 GB GDDR6X frame buffer is smaller than the AMD part's 16 GB, but the bandwidth advantage is so large that memory-bound tasks will still favor NVIDIA.

The AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU wins in power efficiency and memory capacity. Its 30 W TDP is 6.7 times lower than the NVIDIA part's 200 W. It uses no external power connector, while the NVIDIA card uses a 16-pin connector and recommends a 550 W PSU. The 16 GB LPDDR5 memory exceeds the NVIDIA card's 12 GB by 4 GB, which matters for workloads that need capacity over speed. The AMD part also uses a smaller die (178 mm² versus 379 mm²) and fewer transistors (25,390 million versus 45,900 million), yet it achieves a higher transistor density (142.6M per mm² versus 121.1M per mm²), indicating a denser packing on a newer 4 nm process.

The AMD part's FP16 throughput of 5.120 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio shows it can double its FP32 rate when using packed math, a feature the NVIDIA part does not match since its FP16 runs at 1:1 with FP32. That means the AMD architecture has a relatively stronger FP16 path, even though the absolute FP16 number is still lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 lists 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU lists 2.560 TFLOPS. NVIDIA leads by a factor of roughly 11.4.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 51.20 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 9.8 times the bandwidth, while AMD has 4 GB more capacity.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU is rated at 30 W TDP with no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 4070 AD103 is rated at 200 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin connector, and lists a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Does the AMD part have ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, it lists 4 RT cores. The NVIDIA part lists 46 RT cores, a much higher count.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD part uses TSMC's 4 nm node with a 178 mm² die. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm node with a 379 mm² die. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA part lists tensor cores, with a count of 184. The AMD part's tensor core field is null, meaning no tensor core count is recorded for it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The AMD Ryzen Z1 GPU uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, classified in the database as a Console GPU generation. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, in the GeForce 40 generation. The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses a 4 nm TSMC node, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node. Despite the larger process, the NVIDIA die is much bigger at 379 mm² versus 178 mm², and it packs 45,900 million transistors against 25,390 million. Transistor density actually favors AMD at 142.6M per mm² versus 121.1M per mm², suggesting AMD's design places more transistors per area even though the total count is lower.

The compute architecture diverges sharply. AMD lists 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; NVIDIA lists 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware: AMD has 4 RT cores, NVIDIA has 46. Tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA side at 184 units; the AMD part has no tensor core count recorded. FP16 behavior differs as well: AMD lists 5.120 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it uses packed math to double throughput, while NVIDIA lists 29.15 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate matches FP32 without packing.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. AMD uses LPDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 51.20 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses GDDR6X with a 192-bit bus and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 16 GB of memory, the NVIDIA part 12 GB. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design with a 16-pin power connector, while the AMD part has no power connectors and no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every recorded field. Base clock: AMD at 1500 MHz, NVIDIA at 1920 MHz. Boost clock: AMD at 2500 MHz, NVIDIA at 2475 MHz. Memory clock: AMD at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, NVIDIA at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. Memory type and bus width differ completely (LPDDR5 64-bit versus GDDR6X 192-bit). Bandwidth: 51.20 GB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. Memory size: 16 GB versus 12 GB.

Compute resources: shading units 256 versus 5888, TMUs 16 versus 184, ROPs 8 versus 64, RT cores 4 versus 46, tensor cores none versus 184. Pixel rate: 20.00 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 2.560 TFLOPS versus 29.15 TFLOPS. FP16: 5.120 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP: 30 W versus 200 W. Power connectors: none versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: none listed versus 550 W. Slot width: none versus dual-slot. Bus interface: none versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: none versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: AMD is 280 mm long, 111 mm tall, 21 mm wide; NVIDIA is 240 mm long, 110 mm tall, 40 mm wide. Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm. Die size: 178 mm² versus 379 mm². Transistors: 25,390 million versus 45,900 million. Release date: AMD on 2023-09-17, NVIDIA on 2024-02-29. Production status: AMD active, NVIDIA end-of-life. Both share a launch MSRP of 599 USD.