AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU or the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counts are zero for both sides. Without measured performance numbers, direct score comparisons cannot be made. The average benchmark score for both parts is listed as zero, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This means the database has not yet recorded any performance runs for these two products, so any claims about frame rates, render times, or compute throughput must be withheld.

What can be analyzed from the data is the theoretical throughput derived from clock speeds and unit counts. The RTX 4080 Max-Q shows a peak FP32 figure of 20.04 TFLOPS, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU shows 1.638 TFLOPS. That is a 12.2 times difference in raw floating-point rate. The RTX 4080 Max-Q also lists 7424 shading units versus 512 on the AMD part, and 232 texture mapping units versus 32. The pixel rate likewise differs: 108.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD. These are not benchmark results, but they represent the maximum theoretical output each design can deliver.

The memory bandwidth gap is also large. The RTX 4080 Max-Q lists 432.0 GB/s from its 192-bit GDDR6 interface, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU lists 102.4 GB/s from a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus. Bandwidth is a frequent limiter in real workloads, so the NVIDIA part holds a clear advantage in memory-intensive tasks based on the recorded specifications. The AMD part counters with a higher boost clock in one respect: its 1600 MHz boost exceeds the NVIDIA boost of 1350 MHz, but that advantage does not compensate for the far lower unit count.

Given the absence of benchmark scores, no wins can be awarded in either direction. The data only supports a specification-level comparison.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark results, the wins must be inferred from the specification differences. The RTX 4080 Max-Q wins in every raw compute category that matters for gaming and rendering. Its FP32 rate of 20.04 TFLOPS, texture rate of 313.2 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 108.0 GPixel/s all dwarf the AMD figures. The NVIDIA part also has dedicated tensor cores at 232, which the AMD part lacks entirely. That gives the RTX 4080 Max-Q a clear role in AI-accelerated workloads and DLSS-style upscaling. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no tensor cores, so it cannot offload tensor operations.

The AMD part does have one structural advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is listed at 15 W, compared to 60 W for the NVIDIA part. That is a fourfold difference in thermal design power. For battery-powered portable devices, the Ryzen Z2 A GPU is the more efficient choice on paper. It also uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory versus 12 GB of GDDR6 on the NVIDIA side. The larger capacity could benefit workloads that need more memory footprint, though the NVIDIA memory is much faster at 432.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

The RTX 4080 Max-Q also has more ray tracing cores: 58 versus 8 on the AMD part. For ray-traced scenes, the NVIDIA part should deliver substantially higher performance based on core count alone. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the NVIDIA API support exactly. Both are listed as Active production status.

In terms of use cases, the RTX 4080 Max-Q targets high-end mobile gaming and content creation, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU targets low-power handheld or embedded scenarios. The data supports that split: one part uses 60 W and a large AD104 chip, the other uses 15 W and a small Van Gogh chip.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on TSMC 7 nm. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC 5 nm. The process node difference gives NVIDIA a density advantage: the RTX 4080 Max-Q packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The AMD part has 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die, yielding 14.7M per mm². That is a substantial density gap, roughly 8.3 times higher density for the NVIDIA chip.

The AMD chip is named Van Gogh, which is a compact design. The NVIDIA chip is AD104, which is a larger, more complex die. The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor in GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor in GeForce 50 Mobile, per the database. The AMD part lists no predecessor or successor.

Ray tracing hardware differs sharply. The AMD part has 8 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 58 RT cores. Tensor cores are present only on the NVIDIA part, with 232 units. The AMD part lists null for tensor cores, meaning it has none. This architectural difference points to different target workloads: NVIDIA includes hardware for both ray tracing and AI, while AMD relies on its shading units alone for those tasks.

The memory controller layout also differs. The AMD part uses a 128-bit bus with LPDDR5, while the NVIDIA part uses a 192-bit bus with GDDR6. The memory clock is listed as 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for AMD, and 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for NVIDIA. The effective data rate is nearly three times higher on the NVIDIA side.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two parts are as follows:

• Process node: 7 nm (AMD) versus 5 nm (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 2,400 million (AMD) versus 35,800 million (NVIDIA)
• Die size: 163 mm² (AMD) versus 294 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor density: 14.7M per mm² (AMD) versus 121.8M per mm² (NVIDIA)
• Base clock: 1000 MHz (AMD) versus 795 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost clock: 1600 MHz (AMD) versus 1350 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Memory size: 16 GB (AMD) versus 12 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory type: LPDDR5 (AMD) versus GDDR6 (NVIDIA)
• Memory bus width: 128 bit (AMD) versus 192 bit (NVIDIA)
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (AMD) versus 432.0 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Shading units: 512 (AMD) versus 7424 (NVIDIA)
• TMUs: 32 (AMD) versus 232 (NVIDIA)
• ROPs: 16 (AMD) versus 80 (NVIDIA)
• RT cores: 8 (AMD) versus 58 (NVIDIA)
• Tensor cores: null (AMD) versus 232 (NVIDIA)
• Pixel rate: 25.60 GPixel/s (AMD) versus 108.0 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture rate: 51.20 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 313.2 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32: 1.638 TFLOPS (AMD) versus 20.04 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16: 3.277 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio (AMD) versus 20.04 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 15 W (AMD) versus 60 W (NVIDIA)
• Slot width: not listed (AMD) versus IGP (NVIDIA)
• Power connectors: not listed (AMD) versus None (NVIDIA)
• Bus interface: not listed (AMD) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (NVIDIA)
• Display outputs: 1x USB Type-C (AMD) versus Portable Device Dependent (NVIDIA)
• Release date: 2024-12-31 (AMD) versus 2023-01-02 (NVIDIA)

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q has 7424 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 512 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 4080 Max-Q lists 432.0 GB/s from a 192-bit GDDR6 interface, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU lists 102.4 GB/s from a 128-bit LPDDR5 interface.

Q: Does the AMD part have tensor cores?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU lists null for tensor cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 4080 Max-Q has 232 tensor cores.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The RTX 4080 Max-Q shows 20.04 TFLOPS FP32, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU shows 1.638 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What is the TDP for each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a TDP of 15 W, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q has a TDP of 60 W.

Q: Which part has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 58 ray tracing cores, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 8.

The Verdict

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU or the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q, so the verdict must rest on the specification data alone. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q is the clear performance leader in every raw compute metric. Its FP32 rate of 20.04 TFLOPS is 12.2 times higher than the AMD part, its texture rate of 313.2 GTexel/s is about 6.1 times higher, and its pixel rate of 108.0 GPixel/s is about 4.2 times higher. It has 58 ray tracing cores versus 8, and 232 tensor cores where the AMD part has none. For any workload that demands rasterization, ray tracing, or AI acceleration, the RTX 4080 Max-Q is the only viable choice based on the data.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU does offer advantages in specific areas. It draws 15 W versus 60 W, making it a far lower-power option. It also has 16 GB of memory, which is 4 GB more than the NVIDIA part, though the bandwidth is much lower. Its boost clock of 1600 MHz is higher than the NVIDIA boost of 1350 MHz, but that does not offset the massive unit-count deficit. The AMD part is suited for a compact, power-constrained device where the 15 W TDP and 16 GB capacity matter more than peak throughput.

Who should pick which depends on the target platform. A device that needs high-end gaming or content creation performance, with power available, should use the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q. A device that prioritizes low power consumption and larger memory capacity, with minimal performance demands, should use the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. The data does not support any middle ground, as the two parts sit at opposite ends of the mobile GPU spectrum.