AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single benchmark result for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU and no benchmark entries for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible in the traditional sense. The AMD part scores 516 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. That score places it at the 1st percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that nearly every other recorded graphics processor outperforms it in this specific workload.

The absence of benchmark scores for the RTX 5090 SE is notable. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its nearest rivals list is empty. The database does not include any test results for this NVIDIA part, so there is no measured performance data to place against the AMD chip. The RTX 5090 SE sits at the 50th percentile in the database, but this percentile is computed without any actual benchmark scores, making it a positional placeholder rather than a performance measurement.

Looking at the AMD part's nearest rivals provides context for its 516 score. The Intel HD Graphics P4000 scores 534, which is 3.4% higher than the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU. The AMD Radeon HD 6870 scores 536, 3.7% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 6750M scores 484, which is 6.6% lower than the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU. The AMD Radeon HD 6770M scores 569, 9.3% higher. These deltas show the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU clustered tightly with older integrated and discrete graphics solutions from over a decade ago, rather than competing with modern desktop GPUs.

The head-to-head benchmark array between the two items is empty. There are no shared test results where both GPUs appear. The wins counter shows 0 for both parts. This means the database currently holds no scenario where these two products ran the same benchmark suite. Any comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the limited single benchmark for the AMD chip.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU wins in the only measured benchmark available, by virtue of being the only part with a recorded score. Its 516 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 represent a real, quantifiable result. The RTX 5090 SE has no recorded wins because it has no recorded scores. This is not a performance victory in the conventional sense; it is a data availability distinction.

For the AMD part, the win condition is tied to its design goals. It is classified as a Console GPU with a 28 W TDP, 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, and 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The benchmark result of 516 aligns with its position among older integrated graphics, placing it in a bracket where light gaming and basic 3D acceleration are plausible. The 1st percentile ranking confirms it is not intended for demanding desktop workloads.

For the RTX 5090 SE, the absence of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm any workload where it excels. Its specifications, however, suggest a different performance class entirely. The 14080 shading units, 440 texture mapping units, 160 render output units, and 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 performance indicate a part designed for extreme compute and high-resolution rendering. The 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth positions it for memory-intensive tasks. The lack of measured results leaves these as theoretical capabilities rather than confirmed wins.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The AMD chip has a verified benchmark showing modest graphics capability. The NVIDIA card has no verified benchmarks, only architectural specifications that imply high performance. The database records no scenario where the RTX 5090 SE demonstrates a win, but its specification sheet points to advantages in raw throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different architectures. AMD's Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a chip codenamed Strix Point. NVIDIA's RTX 5090 SE uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB202 chip. These represent separate design philosophies and generations.

The manufacturing process differs. AMD uses a 4 nm node from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node from the same foundry. Despite the smaller process number for AMD, the transistor counts tell a different story. AMD packs 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 145.9 million per mm². NVIDIA packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, with a density of 122.9 million per mm². AMD achieves higher density on its smaller chip, but NVIDIA's larger die accommodates far more total transistors.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory with a 128-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 24 GB of GDDR7 memory with a 384-bit bus and 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 50% more memory capacity and roughly 10.5 times the bandwidth, based on the recorded figures. The memory clock rates reflect this: AMD runs at 1000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. AMD has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 14080 shading units, 440 TMUs, 160 ROPs, and 110 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA also includes 440 tensor cores, while AMD's tensor core count is not recorded. The FP32 performance figures confirm the gap: AMD delivers 5.530 TFLOPS, NVIDIA delivers 66.94 TFLOPS. Both parts list FP16 at the same rate as FP32, indicating a 1:1 ratio.

The power envelopes are vastly different. AMD's TDP is 28 W with no power connectors required. NVIDIA's TDP is 500 W, requires a single 16-pin connector, and suggests a 900 W power supply. The physical dimensions reflect this: NVIDIA is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. AMD's dimensions are not recorded. NVIDIA uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while AMD's bus interface is not listed.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs differ: AMD provides one USB Type-C output, NVIDIA provides one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The release dates are both in 2025, with AMD on July 8 and NVIDIA on December 31. NVIDIA lists a predecessor (GeForce 40) and successor (GeForce 60), while AMD lists neither.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU scores 516 points in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This places it at the 1st percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The RTX 5090 SE has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. Its 50th percentile ranking is not based on measured performance data.

Q: How does the AMD chip compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P4000 scores 534, which is 3.4% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 6870 scores 536, 3.7% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 6750M scores 484, 6.6% lower. The AMD Radeon HD 6770M scores 569, 9.3% higher.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: AMD has a TDP of 28 W and requires no power connectors. NVIDIA has a TDP of 500 W, requires one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 900 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: NVIDIA has 14080 shading units compared to AMD's 1024. NVIDIA also has 440 TMUs versus 64, 160 ROPs versus 48, and 110 ray tracing cores versus 16.

The Verdict

The data in the database presents an unusual comparison. One part has a single measured benchmark, the other has none. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU delivers a verified 516 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it among older integrated and low-end discrete GPUs from the early 2010s. Its 1st percentile ranking confirms it operates at the very bottom of the performance spectrum in the database.

The RTX 5090 SE, despite having no benchmark scores, carries specifications that dwarf the AMD part. The 66.94 TFLOPS FP32 figure is 12.1 times higher than AMD's 5.530 TFLOPS, based on the recorded numbers. The 24 GB memory capacity and 1.34 TB/s bandwidth provide a memory subsystem that the AMD chip cannot approach. The 14080 shading units and 110 ray tracing cores indicate a compute architecture built for heavy workloads.

The architecture differences reinforce the performance gap. AMD's RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm node with 34 billion transistors targets efficiency, evidenced by the 28 W TDP. NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm node with 92.2 billion transistors targets maximum throughput, evidenced by the 500 W TDP. The transistor density figures show AMD is more efficient per square millimeter (145.9M per mm² versus 122.9M per mm²), but NVIDIA's larger die allows far more total resources.

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD chip, with its 16 GB memory and 28 W power draw, fits scenarios requiring low power consumption and modest graphics output. The NVIDIA card, with its 24 GB memory, 500 W power draw, and massive compute resources, fits scenarios requiring maximum rendering capability. The database does not provide a direct benchmark comparison, so any performance judgment must rely on the architectural specifications alone.

For users choosing between these two parts, the data points in one direction. The AMD part delivers measurable but minimal graphics performance, appropriate for low-power or embedded contexts. The NVIDIA part, while unmeasured in this database, presents specifications that indicate a performance class multiple orders of magnitude higher. The choice depends on whether the workload demands the extreme capabilities implied by the RTX 5090 SE specifications or the modest, power-efficient profile of the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Strix Point versus GB202
• Architecture: RDNA 3.5 versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: Console GPU (AMD) versus GeForce 50
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 34,000 million versus 92,200 million
• Die Size: 233 mm² versus 750 mm²
• Transistor Density: 145.9M per mm² versus 122.9M per mm²
• Base Clock: 800 MHz versus 1740 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2700 MHz versus 2377 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 16 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory Type: LPDDR5X versus GDDR7
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s versus 1.34 TB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 versus 14080
• TMUs: 64 versus 440
• ROPs: 48 versus 160
• Ray Tracing Cores: 16 versus 110
• Tensor Cores: Not recorded versus 440
• Pixel Rate: 129.6 GPixel/s versus 380.3 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 172.8 GTexel/s versus 1,045.9 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 5.530 TFLOPS versus 66.94 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 28 W versus 500 W
• Slot Width: Not recorded versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not recorded versus 900 W
• Bus Interface: Not recorded versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x USB Type-C versus 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b
• Dimensions: Not recorded versus 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm
• Release Date: 2025-07-08 versus 2025-12-31
• Predecessor: Not recorded versus GeForce 40
• Successor: Not recorded versus GeForce 60
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded versus 1,499 USD
• Benchmark Scores: 516 (Steel Nomad DX12) versus none
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 1 versus 50
• Average Benchmark Score: 516 versus 0
• Nearest Rivals: Four listed versus none