AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM as fundamentally different products with a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers dramatically higher raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature capabilities across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU counters with a far lower power envelope of 15 W, a mature DirectX 12 Ultimate API implementation, and a significantly smaller die.

For users prioritizing raw throughput, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the only choice from the recorded data. It offers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1.638 TFLOPS, 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 102.4 GB/s, and 5120 shading units versus 512. For workloads constrained by power or thermal limits, the AMD part's 15 W TDP represents a distinct operating profile, though the NVIDIA part's TDP is listed as unknown, preventing a direct power comparison.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU suits scenarios requiring a compact, low-power integrated solution with full DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM suits high-performance computing, AI inference, or graphics workloads where its 128 GB memory pool and 160 tensor cores provide decisive advantages. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so percentile rankings remain equal at 50, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. The verdict rests entirely on specification analysis.

Architecture Differences

The manufacturing and architectural gaps are substantial. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses the Van Gogh chip built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a 382 mm² die. The NVIDIA die is more than twice the physical size, and while its transistor count is listed as unknown, the smaller 5 nm node combined with the larger die area indicates a much higher transistor budget.

Architecturally, the AMD part employs RDNA 2.0, while the NVIDIA part uses Blackwell 2.0. This generational difference manifests in several key areas. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 160 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part also has 40 RT cores versus 8 on the AMD side. For ray tracing and tensor-based workloads, the NVIDIA architecture provides dedicated hardware that the AMD part cannot match.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA memory type is faster, the bus is twice as wide, and the capacity is eight times larger. The AMD part's 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is less than half of NVIDIA's 273.2 GB/s.

Feature support also differs sharply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists all APIs as N/A, meaning its software ecosystem is either proprietary or not yet exposed through standard graphics APIs. This makes direct API-level comparisons difficult and indicates the NVIDIA part may target specialized compute workloads rather than general gaming.

The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part has no listed bus interface. The display outputs differ as well: AMD provides 1x USB Type-C, while NVIDIA provides 1x HDMI. The NVIDIA part is classified as an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width, indicating an integrated form factor, while the AMD part has no slot width listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts. The winsA and winsB counts are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Consequently, there are no measured performance deltas to report from actual testing.

However, the specification data enables a quantitative comparison of theoretical peak performance. In FP32 compute, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, which is 14.7 times the AMD part's 1.638 TFLOPS. In FP16, the NVIDIA part delivers 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the AMD part delivers 3.277 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part's FP16 throughput is 7.3 times higher.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA part achieves 750.7 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s for AMD, a 14.7 times advantage. Pixel rates are 93.84 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, a 3.7 times advantage. The NVIDIA part's clock behavior is also notable: its base clock of 741 MHz is lower than AMD's 1000 MHz, but its boost clock of 2346 MHz exceeds AMD's 1600 MHz by 46.6%.

The largest single-specification gap is memory capacity. The NVIDIA part's 128 GB dwarfs the AMD part's 16 GB, an 8-fold difference. Memory bandwidth is 2.7 times higher on the NVIDIA side. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor NVIDIA by factors of 10, 10, and 2.5 respectively. The NVIDIA part has 5 times more RT cores and 20 times more tensor cores (40 vs 8, and 160 vs 0 respectively).

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded field. The process nodes differ: AMD uses 7 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Die sizes are 163 mm² for AMD and 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor count for AMD is 2,400 million, while NVIDIA's is unknown. Transistor density is 14.7M / mm² for AMD, with no density listed for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: AMD base is 1000 MHz, NVIDIA base is 741 MHz. AMD boost is 1600 MHz, NVIDIA boost is 2346 MHz. Memory clocks: AMD is 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), NVIDIA is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Memory configurations: AMD has 16 GB LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s; NVIDIA has 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s.

Compute resources: AMD has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 8 RT cores, and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. Pixel rates: 25.60 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s. Texture rates: 51.20 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s. FP32: 1.638 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS. FP16: 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and form factor: AMD TDP is 15 W, NVIDIA TDP is unknown. NVIDIA has no power connectors, is listed as IGP slot width, and uses PCIe 5.0 x16. AMD lists no power connectors, no slot width, and no bus interface. Display outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C, NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. API support: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA lists N/A for all. Release dates: AMD is 2024-12-31, NVIDIA is 2026-05-31. Both parts have null launch MSRP, so no pricing information is available from the database.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, which is 14.7 times the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5. The NVIDIA part offers 8 times more memory capacity.

Q: Does the AMD part support standard graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists all APIs as N/A.

Q: Which part has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1X 40SM has tensor cores, with 160 units. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU boosts to 1600 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is 46.6% higher.

Q: What is the power draw of each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM's TDP is listed as unknown, so a direct power comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) performance targets workloads that demand massive parallel processing, such as large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, or high-resolution rendering. The 128 GB memory pool and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth enable datasets far beyond the AMD part's 16 GB and 102.4 GB/s. The 160 tensor cores provide dedicated acceleration for matrix operations, giving the NVIDIA part a specialized advantage in machine learning inference. The 40 RT cores also support ray-traced workloads with 5 times the dedicated hardware of the AMD part.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU wins in power efficiency and API compatibility. Its 15 W TDP is the only measured power figure in the database, indicating a solution designed for constrained thermal environments. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run standard graphics applications immediately, while the NVIDIA part's N/A API listings suggest limited or proprietary software paths. The AMD part's 7 nm process and 163 mm² die also indicate a physically smaller, potentially more integrable component.

For gaming workloads, the AMD part's DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set makes it the only one of the two with explicit support for modern graphics APIs. However, its 1.638 TFLOPS FP32 and 25.60 GPixel/s pixel rate are modest figures. For compute-heavy tasks, the NVIDIA part's 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate provide a 14.7 times advantage in both shading and texturing throughput.

The release dates differ by roughly 17 months, with AMD launching 2024-12-31 and NVIDIA 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA part appears in a later generation with a smaller 5 nm process node. Both parts are marked as Active in production status, and both have a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, though neither has a recorded average benchmark score.

The empty head-to-head benchmark table means no measured wins exist for either part. The verdict therefore derives from specification analysis: the NVIDIA N1X 40SM dominates in every compute and memory category, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU offers a lower power envelope and standard API support. Users requiring maximum performance per the recorded specifications should select the NVIDIA part. Users requiring a 15 W solution with DirectX 12 Ultimate support should select the AMD part.