AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs Intel Arc Pro A60M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU and the Intel Arc Pro A60M shows a clear performance hierarchy, though neither part has a populated head-to-head benchmark suite in the database. The available specifications, however, allow for direct compute comparisons that define the gap between these two mobile graphics solutions.

The most decisive difference appears in raw floating-point throughput. The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU produces 1.638 TFLOPS. This places the Intel part at roughly 3.25 times the FP32 output of the AMD part, a substantial margin that will influence every shader-bound workload. In FP16, the Intel part reaches 10.65 TFLOPS, while the AMD part achieves 3.277 TFLOPS, maintaining the same ratio. These figures come directly from the database's recorded clocks and shader counts: the Intel part runs 2048 shading units at a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the AMD part runs 512 shading units at 1600 MHz.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The Intel Arc Pro A60M sustains 166.4 GTexel/s, compared to 51.20 GTexel/s for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. That is a 3.25x advantage in texture fill rate, which directly impacts scene complexity and filtering performance. Pixel throughput shows a similar story: the Intel part records 83.20 GPixel/s, while the AMD part records 25.60 GPixel/s, again a 3.25x gap. These ratios are consistent across all three fill-rate categories because they derive from the same underlying clock and unit-count relationship.

Memory bandwidth presents a different kind of advantage. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 256.0 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses LPDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s. The Intel part delivers 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the AMD part. This matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads such as high-resolution texturing, compute shaders with large working sets, and any data-heavy rendering path. The AMD part's memory clock is recorded at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective transfer, while the Intel part's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective transfer, explaining the bandwidth gap.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M also holds an advantage in ray tracing hardware, with 16 ray tracing cores compared to 8 on the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. Doubling the RT core count suggests better traversal and intersection throughput in ray-traced scenes, though the database does not include actual RT benchmark scores for either part.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU does not win any of the head-to-head comparison categories in the recorded data. The wins count shows 0 for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part, but that reflects the absence of populated benchmark entries rather than a tied result. The specification-level comparisons all favor the Intel Arc Pro A60M.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins across every measured compute and memory category in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 5.325 TFLOPS positions it for demanding graphics workloads, including higher-detail gaming scenes, professional 3D rendering, and compute-accelerated applications. The 166.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 83.20 GPixel/s pixel rate support complex scenes with heavy texture filtering and high-resolution output. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it room for large texture sets and data-intensive shaders without hitting memory bottlenecks as quickly.

The 16 ray tracing cores on the Intel part provide a hardware path for ray-traced effects, which the 8 RT cores on the AMD part also support, but with half the count. In the database's architecture summary, the Intel part carries the Alchemist generation label for pro-series mobile GPUs, indicating its intended role in professional mobile workstations. The 95 W TDP reflects a design that can sustain higher performance under load, at the cost of power draw.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU, with its 15 W TDP, occupies a different operating envelope. Its 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 51.20 GTexel/s texture rate are modest by comparison, but the 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth over LPDDR5 keeps the memory subsystem proportional to the compute capacity. The 16 GB memory capacity, however, exceeds the Intel part's 8 GB, giving the AMD part an advantage in scenarios where memory capacity matters more than bandwidth. Applications that need to hold very large datasets in VRAM, such as certain compute or machine learning inference workloads, could benefit from the larger pool even if the bandwidth is lower.

The AMD part also draws 15 W, which is 80 W less than the Intel part's 95 W TDP. For battery-constrained systems or compact form factors, the power envelope of the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU makes it viable in devices where the Intel part would be impractical. The display output of 1x USB Type-C on the AMD part suggests a single-cable portable configuration, while the Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses the Van Gogh chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. Both are active production parts, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The process node difference is one nanometer in nominal terms, but the transistor counts tell a larger story. The Intel DG2-256 packs 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The AMD Van Gogh packs 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die, yielding 14.7M per mm². The Intel die is 65% larger in area but holds roughly 4.8 times as many transistors. This reflects both the larger shader array and the different architecture design goals.

The shader configuration differs fundamentally. The AMD part uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part uses 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Each of these is exactly four times the count on the AMD part. The ray tracing hardware follows a different ratio: 8 RT cores on the AMD part versus 16 on the Intel part, which is only a 2x difference. The AMD part's clock speeds are higher, with a 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost, while the Intel part runs a 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The Intel part compensates with its larger unit count.

Memory architecture differs in type and capacity. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use the same bus width, but the memory type and clock speed produce the bandwidth difference. The Intel part's effective memory transfer of 16 Gbps is 2.5 times the AMD part's 6.4 Gbps.

The bus interface also differs. The Intel Arc Pro A60M connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no bus interface listed in the database. The Intel part's slot width is listed as IGP, indicating an integrated graphics processor form factor. The AMD part's display output is a single USB Type-C port, while the Intel part's display outputs depend on the portable device implementation.

Power consumption differs substantially, with the AMD part rated at 15 W TDP and the Intel part at 95 W TDP. The release dates also differ: the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU entered production on 2024-12-31, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M entered production on 2023-06-05. The AMD part is a newer release by roughly a year and a half.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 3.25 times the 1.638 TFLOPS produced by the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 2.5 times the bandwidth, while the AMD part has twice the capacity.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The Intel DG2-256 chip contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die with a density of 42.8M per mm². The AMD Van Gogh chip contains 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die with a density of 14.7M per mm².

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.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M has a 95 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 16 ray tracing cores, double the 8 ray tracing cores on the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

The Verdict

The data in the database separates these two GPUs into distinct performance classes. The Intel Arc Pro A60M is the stronger performer in every compute and fill-rate metric. Its FP32 throughput of 5.325 TFLOPS, texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s are each 3.25 times the corresponding figures for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. Its memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is 2.5 times higher, and its 16 ray tracing cores double the AMD part's count.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU counters with a 16 GB memory capacity, which is double the Intel part's 8 GB, and a 15 W TDP that is 80 W lower than the Intel part's 95 W rating. It also boosts to 1600 MHz, which is 300 MHz higher than the Intel part's boost clock, though the smaller shader array means that clock advantage does not translate into higher aggregate throughput.

For applications that prioritize raw rendering performance, texture throughput, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing capability, the Intel Arc Pro A60M is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and pro-series mobile designation align with workstation-class usage. For systems that require lower power draw, a newer release date, or double the VRAM capacity, the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU presents the relevant alternative. The two GPUs serve different design targets, and the benchmark data supports that split.