AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two mobile graphics solutions with fundamentally different design targets. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU, built on the Van Gogh chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, is a 15 W part aimed at low-power portable gaming devices. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile, based on Meteor Lake with Xe-LPG architecture, is a 65 W integrated graphics processor designed for mainstream laptops. The performance gap is substantial and consistent across the raw computational metrics. The Intel part delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1.638 TFLOPS for the AMD part, a 2.4x advantage. Texture fill rate favors Intel at 123.2 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s, and pixel throughput stands at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the clear choice for users who need higher frame rates and more demanding graphical workloads. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is suited for scenarios where power consumption is the primary constraint, as its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Intel part's 65 W requirement. Both parts occupy the 50th percentile in the database's all-GPU ranking, indicating they sit at the midpoint of the performance distribution. The Intel part's higher clock ceiling, 2200 MHz boost versus 1600 MHz, combined with 896 shading units versus 512, explains its commanding lead in every measured throughput category. The AMD part's 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth. For creators and gamers who prioritize raw output, the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the only defensible pick. For handheld or battery-sensitive designs, the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU offers sufficient capability with dramatically lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS, which is 2.4 times the 1.638 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it draws from the host system's pool.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a 65 W TDP, a 4.3x difference in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has 896 shading units, compared to 512 on the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU, a 1.75x advantage.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD chip contains 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is built on the Van Gogh chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture. This is a console-class GPU design from AMD's generation of graphics cores that emphasize efficiency and feature completeness. The chip is manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, containing 2,400 million transistors within a 163 mm² die area, yielding a transistor density of 14.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture includes 8 ray tracing cores, which is a notable inclusion for a low-power part. The memory subsystem uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The clock strategy is conservative, with a 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The display output is limited to a single USB Type-C connection, indicating a design intended for handheld gaming devices with minimal external connectivity.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is built on the Meteor Lake chip using Xe-LPG architecture. This is part of Intel's Arc Graphics-M generation for mobile platforms. The process node is Intel's 10 nm process, and the database does not record transistor count or die size for this part. The architecture uses a Ring Bus interface for system integration. The memory configuration is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; the GPU accesses the host system's memory pool, and bandwidth is system-dependent. The clock behavior is different from the AMD part, with a much lower 300 MHz base clock but a significantly higher 2200 MHz boost clock. The Intel part has no recorded ray tracing cores, despite supporting DirectX 12 (12_1). The slot width is listed as IGP, confirming its integrated nature. Display outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its role in laptops where the panel connection varies by implementation. The predecessor to this part is HD Graphics-M, placing it in Intel's integrated graphics lineage.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. AMD opts for a dedicated memory pool and fixed clock envelope, which suits a self-contained gaming handheld. Intel opts for a shared memory model with a wide boost range, which suits a laptop where the GPU can opportunistically use available power and memory bandwidth. The AMD part's 7 nm process from TSMC allows for a smaller die and lower power, while the Intel part's 10 nm process from Intel's foundry serves a different cost and integration strategy. The transistor density of the AMD chip, 14.7 million per square millimeter, reflects a denser packing than the Intel part, though the Intel part's transistor count is not recorded for direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences across nearly every category. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU operates at a 1000 MHz base clock and 1600 MHz boost, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile runs at 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The AMD part includes 8 ray tracing cores; the Intel part records none. Pixel rates differ at 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD versus 52.80 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates differ at 51.20 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.638 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 compute, using a 2:1 ratio, is 3.277 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS.

Memory specifications are fundamentally different. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has system-shared memory with system-shared type, bus width, and bandwidth, all dependent on the host platform. The AMD memory clock is 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. The Intel memory clock is listed as system-shared. Power consumption is a major differentiator: 15 W for AMD versus 65 W for Intel. The AMD part has a display output of one USB Type-C port; the Intel part has portable-device-dependent outputs. The bus interface for the Intel part is Ring Bus; the AMD part does not record a bus interface. The Intel part is an IGP slot width; the AMD part has no slot width recorded. Both parts are active production status. The AMD part released on 2024-12-31, while the Intel part released on 2023-12-13. The Intel part lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor; the AMD part has no predecessor. DirectX support differs: AMD supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), Intel supports 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a one-sided comparison. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in every recorded computational metric. The largest margin is in FP32 compute, where the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS is 2.4 times the AMD part's 1.638 TFLOPS. This translates to a 140.7% advantage in raw shader throughput. The texture rate gap is similar in proportion: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s, a 2.4x difference. This means the Intel part can fill texture samples at a rate that the AMD part cannot approach, which directly impacts scene complexity and material detail in games. The pixel rate difference is 52.80 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, also exactly 2.06x. This affects fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high resolutions and heavy overdraw.

The shading unit count explains the compute gap. The Intel part's 896 shading units versus 512 on the AMD part gives it a 1.75x raw execution resource advantage. The boost clock difference adds to this: 2200 MHz versus 1600 MHz, a 1.375x clock advantage. When combined, these factors produce the observed 2.4x FP32 performance delta. The texture mapping unit count of 56 versus 32, and raster output unit count of 24 versus 16, further reinforce the Intel part's dominance in geometry and pixel processing.

The FP16 performance follows the same pattern. The Intel part delivers 7.885 TFLOPS versus 3.277 TFLOPS for the AMD part, again a 2.4x gap. This matters for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference and image processing tasks. The AMD part's ray tracing cores, 8 of them, provide a feature that the Intel part lacks, but the database does not include ray tracing benchmark scores for either part, so the practical impact cannot be quantified here. The AMD part's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is a fixed, dedicated resource, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth is system-dependent, which could be higher or lower depending on the host laptop's memory configuration. On a high-end laptop with fast system memory, the Intel part could exceed the AMD part's bandwidth, but on a low-end system it could fall short. The database does not record a specific bandwidth figure for the Intel part, so no direct comparison is possible.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This means they are neither top-tier nor bottom-tier in the overall distribution. The absence of recorded benchmark scores in the head-to-head data means the analysis relies on the theoretical throughput figures. The Intel part's higher TDP of 65 W allows it to sustain higher clocks and feed more execution units, while the AMD part's 15 W TDP restricts it to a lower performance envelope. The release dates are close, with the AMD part arriving roughly one year after the Intel part. The Intel part's predecessor, HD Graphics-M, indicates a direct lineage in Intel's mobile graphics line, while the AMD part has no predecessor, suggesting it may be a new design point. The AMD part's 7 nm process and 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die give it a density of 14.7 million transistors per square millimeter, which is a manufacturing advantage, but this does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded metrics. The Intel part's lack of recorded transistor and die data makes a density comparison impossible, but its 10 nm process and 65 W power budget indicate a different design trade-off favoring raw throughput over efficiency.