AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation represent two fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part is built on the Van Gogh chip, which uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture. This is a compact, low-power design intended for consoles and portable devices. The NVIDIA part uses the AD104 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, a much larger and more powerful design aimed at mobile workstations.

The manufacturing processes differ substantially. AMD uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. This node difference directly contributes to the transistor density gap. The AMD chip packs 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die, resulting in a density of 14.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is roughly 80% larger by area but holds nearly 15 times more transistors, which explains the massive gap in compute resources.

The memory subsystems reflect their different roles. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. That is over four times the memory bandwidth on the NVIDIA side, which matters greatly for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Feature support differs in ray tracing and AI acceleration. The AMD chip includes 8 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA chip has 40. The NVIDIA chip also includes 160 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the underlying API feature sets are identical. The difference lies in the hardware resources available to execute those APIs.

The NVIDIA part is a discrete mobile GPU with a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and an IGP slot width. The AMD part lists no bus interface and only a single USB Type-C display output. NVIDIA's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the actual ports vary by laptop implementation. The AMD part, with its single USB Type-C output, is clearly designed for a tightly integrated portable console form factor.

Power delivery separates the two dramatically. The AMD chip has a TDP of 15 W and lists no power connectors. The NVIDIA chip has a TDP of 100 W and also lists no power connectors, typical for mobile parts that draw from the motherboard. The 85 W TDP difference shapes every other specification and benchmark outcome.

Specification Differences

The core configuration difference is stark. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is exactly 10 times the shading units, 5 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs.

Clock speeds are closer than the core counts would suggest. AMD runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at a 1110 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The NVIDIA base clock is slightly higher, while the AMD boost clock is slightly higher. The real difference is in how many cores are executing at those clocks.

Memory clocks differ in both frequency and effective data rate. AMD lists a memory clock of 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. NVIDIA lists a memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. Combined with the wider 192-bit bus, the NVIDIA memory bandwidth advantage is enormous.

The compute throughput numbers tell the story clearly. AMD delivers 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 3.277 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. NVIDIA delivers 15.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.82 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part has roughly 9.7 times the FP32 throughput and 4.8 times the FP16 throughput. The 1:1 FP16 ratio on NVIDIA means it does not lose half its rate when switching to half precision, a significant advantage for AI and compute workloads that use FP16.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. AMD achieves 25.60 GPixel/s and 51.20 GTexel/s. NVIDIA achieves 98.88 GPixel/s and 247.2 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part is roughly 3.9 times faster in pixel fill and 4.8 times faster in texture fill.

The release dates are about nine months apart. AMD released on January 1, 2025. NVIDIA released on March 21, 2023. NVIDIA lists its predecessor as Ampere-MW and successor as Blackwell-MW. AMD lists no predecessor or successor. Both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory. The AMD part has more capacity, but the NVIDIA part has far higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The AMD chip contains 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. NVIDIA has roughly 15 times more transistors.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part support tensor operations?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation includes 160 tensor cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU does not list any tensor cores.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W. The NVIDIA part consumes nearly seven times the power budget.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The AMD part has 512 shading units. The NVIDIA part has 5,120 shading units, exactly ten times more.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 432.0 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. That is a 4.2 times advantage for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two parts. The database lists zero benchmark entries for both the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. However, the specification differences are so large that the performance relationship is clear from the hardware resources alone.

The largest advantage for NVIDIA comes in shading throughput. With 5,120 shading units versus 512, and FP32 performance of 15.82 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS, the NVIDIA part is approximately 9.7 times faster in raw single-precision compute. This translates directly to faster vertex processing, pixel shading, and general compute workloads.

Texture throughput shows a similar gap. NVIDIA delivers 247.2 GTexel/s against AMD's 51.20 GTexel/s, a 4.8 times advantage. This affects how quickly textures can be sampled and filtered, which is critical for modern game rendering and 3D modeling applications.

Pixel throughput is closer but still heavily favors NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part achieves 98.88 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD, a 3.9 times difference. This matters for fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw.

Ray tracing resources favor NVIDIA by a factor of five, with 40 ray tracing cores against 8. While AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture includes ray acceleration, the raw core count difference suggests substantially faster ray tracing performance on the NVIDIA part.

The tensor core advantage is absolute. NVIDIA has 160 tensor cores; AMD has none. Any workload that relies on tensor operations, such as AI inference, DLSS-style upscaling, or machine learning training, will only run on the NVIDIA part.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive NVIDIA win. At 432.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, NVIDIA has a 4.2 times bandwidth advantage. This reduces the likelihood of bandwidth bottlenecks in texture-heavy scenes and large data set processing.

The FP16 ratio difference is worth noting. AMD achieves 3.277 TFLOPS of FP16, which is exactly double its FP32 rate. NVIDIA achieves 15.82 TFLOPS of FP16, equal to its FP32 rate. In FP16 workloads, NVIDIA is still 4.8 times faster, but the efficiency profile differs. NVIDIA does not sacrifice half-precision throughput, making it better suited for mixed-precision compute.

The only specification where AMD leads is memory capacity, with 16 GB against 12 GB. This gives AMD more headroom for very large data sets that fit in memory, though the much lower bandwidth may offset that advantage in practice.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU wins in scenarios that prioritize power efficiency and compact integration. Its 15 W TDP allows for fanless or low-noise designs in portable consoles. The 16 GB memory capacity is larger than the NVIDIA part, which could help with workloads that need to hold large models or textures in memory without streaming. The single USB Type-C display output indicates a device designed for direct integration into a handheld form factor, not a multi-monitor workstation.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation wins in nearly every raw performance category. It dominates in shading, texturing, pixel fill, ray tracing, tensor compute, and memory bandwidth. The 100 W TDP, while much higher, is typical for mobile workstation GPUs in larger laptops that have adequate cooling. The 12 GB GDDR6 memory, while smaller in capacity, operates at far higher speed and bandwidth.

For gaming at high settings and high resolutions, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice based on the data. Higher pixel rate, texture rate, and bandwidth all contribute to smoother frame pacing and better visual fidelity. The 160 tensor cores enable AI-accelerated features that the AMD part cannot perform at all.

For compute workloads, the NVIDIA part's 15.82 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, combined with 160 tensor cores, makes it vastly more capable for scientific computing, machine learning, and content creation. The AMD part's 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 and 3.277 TFLOPS of FP16 place it in a much lower performance tier.

For battery-powered handheld devices, the AMD part wins by design. The 15 W TDP is sustainable in a small chassis with minimal cooling. The 16 GB memory capacity is generous for a low-power part. The Van Gogh chip is clearly built for this niche.

The Verdict

The data describes two GPUs with almost no overlap in intended use. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is a low-power console chip with 512 shading units, a 15 W TDP, and 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. It is designed for portable devices where power draw and heat are the primary constraints. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory is its strongest feature, offering more capacity than the NVIDIA part, but the 102.4 GB/s bandwidth limits how much that capacity can be utilized.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation is a high-performance mobile workstation GPU with 5,120 shading units, a 100 W TDP, and 15.82 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. It delivers roughly ten times the compute throughput, five times the ray tracing cores, and four times the memory bandwidth of the AMD part. It also includes 160 tensor cores, a feature entirely missing from the AMD specification. The 12 GB GDDR6 memory is smaller in capacity but operates at 432.0 GB/s, a 4.2 times bandwidth advantage.

The choice between them depends entirely on the target platform. A handheld console with a small battery and passive cooling would use the AMD part. A workstation laptop with active cooling and a large power budget would use the NVIDIA part. The benchmark data is empty for both, but the specification gap is so large that no benchmark is needed to predict the outcome. The NVIDIA part wins every performance metric except memory capacity and power efficiency. The AMD part wins those two categories and nothing else.

For users who need maximum performance in a mobile workstation, the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation is the only rational choice from this data. For users who need a low-power integrated GPU for a portable console, the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU fits that role. Neither part can substitute for the other.