AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU or the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. Both entries report an average benchmark score of zero, and no head-to-head benchmark results are listed. The absence of measured data means the comparison must be built entirely from the architectural and specification records in the database.

The most significant numerical gap between the two parts is in peak floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU records an FP32 figure of 4.301 TFLOPS, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU records 1.638 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 2.6 times the FP32 throughput of the AMD part. In FP16, the NVIDIA GPU reaches 8.602 TFLOPS against 3.277 TFLOPS for the AMD GPU, again a 2.6 times advantage. These are the largest single-number wins in the entire comparison.

Texture throughput also favors the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. The NVIDIA part records 67.20 GTexel/s, versus 51.20 GTexel/s for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU. That is a 31 percent advantage in texture rate. Pixel rate goes the other direction: the AMD part records 25.60 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part records 22.40 GPixel/s. The AMD GPU holds a 14 percent lead in pixel throughput, a narrow but real edge.

Both GPUs share identical memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and an identical 128-bit memory bus width. That parity is notable because the two memory types differ, but the effective bandwidth recorded in the database is the same. Clock rates also differ substantially. The AMD GPU runs a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU runs a base clock of 561 MHz and a boost clock of 1400 MHz. The AMD part therefore has a 200 MHz higher boost clock and a 439 MHz higher base clock.

The shading unit count strongly favors NVIDIA. The Switch 2 GPU records 1536 shading units, exactly three times the 512 shading units of the Ryzen Z2 A GPU. Texture mapping units follow a similar pattern: 48 TMUs for NVIDIA versus 32 for AMD, a 50 percent advantage. Render output units are equal at 16 for both. Ray tracing cores favor NVIDIA at 12 against 8, and the NVIDIA part also includes 48 tensor cores while the AMD part records none.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU reports a 50th percentile rank among all GPUs in the database, and the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU also reports a 50th percentile rank. With no benchmark scores or nearest rival entries present, the percentile values cannot be contextualized further. The database records both parts as active production status, so neither is a discontinued or legacy part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU records 4.301 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.6 times the 1.638 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both record exactly 102.4 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, despite the AMD part using LPDDR5 and the NVIDIA part using LPDDR5X.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, exactly three times the 512 shading units of the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Q: What is the pixel rate comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU records 25.60 GPixel/s, which is 14 percent higher than the 22.40 GPixel/s of the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part include tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU records 48 tensor cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU records no tensor cores.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same process node?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses a 7 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses an 8 nm Samsung process.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is built on the Van Gogh chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is built on the GA10B chip using Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The AMD die measures 163 mm² with 2,400 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 14.7 million per mm². The NVIDIA die measures 200 mm², but the database records its transistor count as unknown, so density cannot be computed.

The NVIDIA Ampere architecture includes features that the AMD RDNA 2.0 part does not record. The Switch 2 GPU has 48 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD record. Ray tracing hardware exists on both, but in different quantities: 12 ray tracing cores on NVIDIA versus 8 on AMD. The shading engine layout also differs. NVIDIA has 1536 shading units across 48 TMUs, while AMD has 512 shading units across 32 TMUs. Both parts share 16 ROPs, which explains their relatively close pixel rates despite the large shader count gap.

The process node difference is significant for power characteristics. The AMD part runs on a smaller 7 nm node and records a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA part runs on a larger 8 nm node and records a TDP of 40 W. That is more than 2.6 times the power draw for the NVIDIA GPU, which also has more than 2.6 times the FP32 throughput. The ratio of compute to power is therefore similar, but the absolute power envelope favors AMD.

Memory architecture differs in type but not in width. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X. Both connect through a 128-bit bus and both record 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded identically at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. The AMD part has 4 GB more capacity, while the NVIDIA part uses a faster memory generation at the same effective data rate.

API support is identical across both parts. Both record DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display output situation differs sharply: the AMD GPU records 1x USB Type-C output, while the NVIDIA GPU records no outputs at all. The NVIDIA part is clearly designed as an embedded console GPU rather than a standalone card.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where the two GPUs differ. Process node: 7 nm for AMD versus 8 nm for NVIDIA. Foundry: TSMC versus Samsung. Die size: 163 mm² for AMD versus 200 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 2,400 million for AMD versus unknown for NVIDIA. Transistor density: 14.7M per mm² for AMD versus null for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The AMD GPU runs at 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The NVIDIA GPU runs at 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. Memory size differs: 16 GB for AMD versus 12 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type differs: LPDDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bus width is identical at 128 bit, and bandwidth is identical at 102.4 GB/s.

Compute resources differ across the board. Shading units: 512 for AMD versus 1536 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 32 versus 48. ROPs: 16 for both. Ray tracing cores: 8 versus 12. Tensor cores: null for AMD versus 48 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate: 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD versus 22.40 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 51.20 GTexel/s for AMD versus 67.20 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 1.638 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS. FP16: 3.277 TFLOPS versus 8.602 TFLOPS.

Power draw differs by a factor of 2.67. The AMD part records 15 W TDP, the NVIDIA part records 40 W TDP. Display outputs differ: 1x USB Type-C for AMD, no outputs for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part records physical dimensions of 272 mm length, 116 mm height, and 14 mm width. The AMD part records no dimensions. Release dates differ: the AMD GPU is dated 2024-12-31, while the NVIDIA GPU is dated 2025-06-04. The NVIDIA part has a launch MSRP of 449 USD. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded.

The manufacturing differences dominate the physical comparison. The AMD part achieves a higher transistor density on a smaller die with a 7 nm process. The NVIDIA part uses a larger 200 mm² die on an 8 nm process but packs more compute units into that area, including 1536 shading units and 48 tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data records two GPUs with opposite strengths. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is the clear compute leader, with 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 against 1.638 TFLOPS for AMD, a 2.6 times advantage. It also leads in texture rate (67.20 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s), shading units (1536 versus 512), TMUs (48 versus 32), ray tracing cores (12 versus 8), and it is the only one of the two with tensor cores. The NVIDIA part also carries a 40 W TDP and a 449 USD launch MSRP.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU wins the efficiency comparison. Its 15 W TDP is less than half the NVIDIA part's 40 W, and it still delivers a higher pixel rate (25.60 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s). It also offers more memory capacity at 16 GB versus 12 GB, uses a smaller 7 nm process, and records a smaller die at 163 mm² versus 200 mm². The AMD part has a higher boost clock at 1600 MHz versus 1400 MHz and a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 561 MHz.

The database places both GPUs at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but that percentile comes with no supporting benchmark scores. The recorded data therefore supports a functional split: the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers substantially higher shader and ray tracing throughput, suitable for heavier graphics workloads, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU delivers higher pixel fill, lower power draw, and more memory. The NVIDIA part is the performance choice. The AMD part is the efficiency choice.

For workloads that depend on pixel rate, the AMD part holds a narrow but real 14 percent advantage. For workloads that depend on texture rate, the NVIDIA part holds a 31 percent advantage. For FP32 compute, the NVIDIA part holds a 163 percent advantage. The one area where the AMD part leads by a wide margin is power efficiency, where it uses 62.5 percent less power than the NVIDIA part while still maintaining competitive pixel throughput.

The absence of tensor cores on the AMD part is a structural difference, not a minor one. The 48 tensor cores on the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU provide hardware paths for workloads that the AMD part cannot accelerate in the same way. Similarly, the 4 GB memory capacity advantage on the AMD part gives it more headroom for data-heavy workloads, even though the bandwidth is identical.

The physical form factor also matters. The NVIDIA part records a 272 mm length, 116 mm height, and 14 mm width, while the AMD part records no physical dimensions. The NVIDIA GPU lists no display outputs, confirming its role as an embedded console component. The AMD GPU lists a single USB Type-C output, suggesting a more flexible connectivity role.

The final split is clear from the recorded data. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is the higher-performance part in compute, texture, ray tracing, and tensor workloads, with a correspondingly higher 40 W power envelope. The AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is the lower-power part with better pixel rate, more memory capacity, and a smaller process node. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload prioritizes raw throughput or efficiency.