AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either GPU. Both entries show an empty benchmarks array, and the head-to-head benchmark list is also empty. The database records zero wins for each side in the head-to-head comparison. However, the raw specification data allows for a meaningful theoretical comparison of compute capabilities, rasterization throughput, and memory architecture.

The most significant advantage for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile lies in raw shader throughput. The Arc 130V delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than double the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS. In FP16 performance, the Intel part reaches 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to the AMD's 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1). This represents a 102.4% advantage for Intel in FP32 and a 102.3% advantage in FP16. The Intel GPU carries 896 shading units versus 512 on the AMD part, which explains the compute gap.

Texture fill rate follows a similar pattern. The Arc 130V Mobile outputs 103.6 GTexel/s, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU manages 51.20 GTexel/s. The Intel part has 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), while AMD has 32. This gives Intel a 102.3% lead in texturing throughput, which directly impacts scene complexity and detail rendering in games.

Pixel throughput tells a slightly different story. The Arc 130V achieves 51.80 GPixel/s against the Ryzen Z2 A's 25.60 GPixel/s. Intel's 28 render output units (ROPs) versus AMD's 16 ROPs yields a 102.3% advantage in pixel fill rate. This matters for heavy overdraw scenarios, anti-aliasing, and high-resolution rendering where pixel output becomes the bottleneck.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU does hold one structural advantage: memory configuration. The AMD part uses 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure, meaning its memory performance is entirely contingent on the host platform's memory subsystem. The AMD's fixed 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides a predictable baseline that does not depend on external factors.

Clock speeds reveal divergent design philosophies. AMD runs a 1000 MHz base clock boosting to 1600 MHz, while Intel runs a much lower 300 MHz base but boosts to 1850 MHz. The Intel part's higher boost clock, combined with its larger shader array, explains its compute dominance. The AMD part's higher base clock suggests a more consistent minimum performance level, while the Intel GPU depends more heavily on boost behavior.

The transistor and die data show interesting tradeoffs. The Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses a 7 nm process at TSMC with 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 14.7M per mm². The Arc 130V Mobile uses a 3 nm process at TSMC with an unknown transistor count on a 172 mm² die. The smaller process node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage, though the larger die size suggests the integrated CPU and GPU complex occupies more physical space.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Intel Arc 130V Mobile is the stronger GPU for compute-intensive and fill-rate-bound workloads. Its FP32 performance of 3.315 TFLOPS is roughly double the AMD's 1.638 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s is double the AMD's 51.20 GTexel/s. For gaming workloads that rely heavily on shader complexity and texture detail, the Intel part holds a clear mathematical advantage.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU positions itself as a lower power, predictable memory solution. Its 15 W TDP versus the Intel's 37 W TDP indicates a substantial power efficiency difference, though the database does not record performance-per-watt figures. The AMD's dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 memory with fixed 102.4 GB/s bandwidth removes dependency on system memory configuration, which could be relevant for portable devices where memory tuning is limited.

The Arc 130V Mobile's system shared memory is a double-edged sword. In a well-configured system with fast memory, the Intel part could exceed the AMD's fixed bandwidth. But in a system with slower memory, the Intel GPU's performance would degrade. The AMD part's dedicated memory ensures consistent bandwidth regardless of the host system.

For ray tracing, both parts support it via their 12 Ultimate API compatibility. The AMD has 8 ray tracing cores, while the Intel has 7. The database does not record ray tracing benchmark scores, so no definitive performance comparison can be made for that workload.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a predecessor listed as HD Graphics-M, indicating lineage from Intel's older integrated graphics line. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no predecessor listed, suggesting it may be a first-generation product in its category.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, which is AMD's second-generation RDNA design. This architecture is known for its workgroup processor design and optimized shading pipeline. The chip is codenamed Van Gogh and belongs to the Console GPU generation, indicating it is designed for embedded or handheld gaming applications.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses Xe2-LPG architecture, Intel's second-generation Xe architecture optimized for low power graphics. The chip is codenamed Lunar Lake and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. Intel lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M, showing a direct evolutionary line from Intel's older integrated graphics solutions.

Process technology differs significantly. AMD uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, a mature node that has been widely adopted. Intel uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, a more advanced node that allows for higher transistor density and lower power consumption per transistor. The database does not record the Intel part's transistor count, but the die size of 172 mm² versus AMD's 163 mm² suggests Intel is fitting a more complex design into a similar physical footprint.

The AMD part integrates 2,400 million transistors on its 163 mm² die, achieving a density of 14.7M per mm². The Intel part's die is slightly larger at 172 mm², but without a transistor count, density cannot be calculated. The 3 nm process would theoretically allow for higher density than the 7 nm process, but the actual count remains unrecorded.

Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means both are capable of running modern games with feature-level 12_2 requirements, including hardware ray tracing and variable rate shading. The identical API support simplifies cross-platform comparison for software compatibility.

The ray tracing hardware differs in quantity but not necessarily capability. AMD includes 8 ray tracing cores, while Intel includes 7. The database does not record ray tracing performance metrics, so the architectural efficiency of each implementation cannot be compared directly.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification category. The following fields show direct numerical differences:

• Shading Units: AMD has 512, Intel has 896. Intel leads by 384 units.
• Texture Mapping Units: AMD has 32, Intel has 56. Intel leads by 24 units.
• Render Output Units: AMD has 16, Intel has 28. Intel leads by 12 units.
• Ray Tracing Cores: AMD has 8, Intel has 7. AMD leads by 1 core.
• Base Clock: AMD runs 1000 MHz, Intel runs 300 MHz. AMD's base clock is 700 MHz higher.
• Boost Clock: AMD boosts to 1600 MHz, Intel boosts to 1850 MHz. Intel's boost is 250 MHz higher.
• FP32 Performance: AMD delivers 1.638 TFLOPS, Intel delivers 3.315 TFLOPS. Intel leads by 1.677 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: AMD delivers 3.277 TFLOPS, Intel delivers 6.630 TFLOPS. Intel leads by 3.353 TFLOPS.
• Pixel Rate: AMD achieves 25.60 GPixel/s, Intel achieves 51.80 GPixel/s. Intel leads by 26.20 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD achieves 51.20 GTexel/s, Intel achieves 103.6 GTexel/s. Intel leads by 52.40 GTexel/s.
• TDP: AMD is rated at 15 W, Intel is rated at 37 W. Intel consumes 22 W more.
• Memory Size: AMD uses 16 GB dedicated, Intel uses system shared.
• Memory Type: AMD uses LPDDR5, Intel uses system shared.
• Memory Bus Width: AMD uses 128 bit, Intel uses system shared.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD delivers 102.4 GB/s, Intel's is system dependent.
• Memory Clock: AMD runs 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), Intel uses system shared.
• Process Node: AMD uses 7 nm, Intel uses 3 nm.
• Die Size: AMD measures 163 mm², Intel measures 172 mm².
• Transistors: AMD has 2,400 million, Intel has unknown.
• Transistor Density: AMD achieves 14.7M per mm², Intel has no recorded density.
• Display Outputs: AMD provides 1x USB Type-C, Intel is portable device dependent.
• Bus Interface: AMD has no recorded interface, Intel uses IGP.
• Slot Width: AMD has no recorded slot width, Intel uses IGP.
• Release Date: AMD released 2024-12-31, Intel released 2024-09-23. Intel released earlier.
• Predecessor: AMD has none recorded, Intel lists HD Graphics-M.
• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel.
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus Xe2-LPG.
• Chip: Van Gogh versus Lunar Lake.
• Generation: Console GPU (AMD) versus Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.630 TFLOPS FP16, versus the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.277 TFLOPS FP16. Intel leads by roughly double across both precision formats.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s fixed bandwidth. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance varies based on the host platform.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile is rated at 37 W TDP. Intel consumes 22 W more power under its thermal design point.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means they have identical API compatibility for modern gaming and compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 8 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 7. AMD leads by one core, though no ray tracing benchmark scores are recorded.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses TSMC's 7 nm process with 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses TSMC's 3 nm process with an unknown transistor count on a 172 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins decisively in every compute and fill-rate category recorded. Its FP32 performance of 3.315 TFLOPS is 102.4% higher than the AMD part's 1.638 TFLOPS. Texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s gives Intel a 102.3% advantage for texture-heavy scenes. Pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s provides Intel a 102.3% lead for resolution scaling and anti-aliasing workloads. The 896 shading units versus 512 give Intel more parallel processing capacity for complex shader effects. The 1850 MHz boost clock versus 1600 MHz adds an additional performance lever.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU wins in power efficiency and memory determinism. Its 15 W TDP is less than half of Intel's 37 W TDP, making it the lower power option for thermally constrained devices. The dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s fixed bandwidth removes performance variability that comes with Intel's system shared memory approach. The base clock of 1000 MHz versus 300 MHz indicates AMD maintains a higher floor of performance without relying on boost behavior. The 8 ray tracing cores versus 7 gives AMD a one-core structural advantage in ray tracing hardware count.

For gaming workloads, the Intel Arc 130V Mobile appears better suited for modern titles that demand high shader throughput and texture detail. The doubling of FP32, texture rate, and pixel rate suggests it can handle higher graphical fidelity settings. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU appears better suited for devices where power draw is critical and memory behavior must be predictable regardless of host system configuration. The 15 W TDP versus 37 W TDP suggests AMD targets a lower power envelope that could enable smaller form factors or longer battery life.

The release date difference shows Intel launched on 2024-09-23, while AMD launched on 2024-12-31. Intel has a predecessor in HD Graphics-M, while AMD has no predecessor recorded. Both are listed as Active production status. The Intel part uses an IGP bus interface and slot width, confirming its integrated design. The AMD part has no recorded bus interface, and its display output is a single USB Type-C connector. The Intel part's display outputs are portable device dependent, suggesting its video output configuration varies by implementation.