AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU versus the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero wins in comparative testing, and identical percentile rankings against all GPUs at the 50th percentile. The average benchmark score for each is zero, meaning no empirical performance data has been captured to differentiate these two parts through measured workloads.

What the data does show is a theoretical performance gap based on the hardware specifications recorded. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. That is exactly double the raw floating-point throughput. In FP16 workloads, the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 8.294 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU also achieves 8.294 TFLOPS but with a 1:1 ratio. This means the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU halves its FP16 rate when executing FP32 instructions, whereas the Ryzen Z2 GPU maintains the same throughput across both precisions.

Pixel fill rates are identical at 86.40 GPixel/s for both parts, and texture fill rates match at 129.6 GTexel/s. Both GPUs pair 768 shading units with 48 texture mapping units and 32 render output units. The ray tracing core count is also identical at 12 cores. These shared specifications indicate that the primary differentiator in compute throughput comes from architectural efficiency rather than raw unit counts.

The memory subsystem shows a measurable difference. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses LPDDR5 memory at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, producing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit bus. The Ryzen Z2 GPU uses LPDDR5X memory at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective speed, producing 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth across the same 128-bit bus. That represents a 17.5 GB/s advantage for the Ryzen Z2 GPU, or roughly 17 percent higher memory bandwidth. Both parts carry 16 GB of memory, so capacity is not a differentiator.

Clock speeds are recorded as identical: 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost for both. The performance gap therefore does not come from higher clocks, but from the underlying architecture and memory technology. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built on the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. The process node difference is significant: 6 nm for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU versus 4 nm for the Ryzen Z2 GPU, both fabricated by TSMC.

Transistor counts reinforce this architectural gap. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The Ryzen Z2 GPU contains 25,390 million transistors on a smaller 178 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The Ryzen Z2 GPU packs nearly double the transistors into a physically smaller die, which explains how it achieves twice the FP32 throughput at the same 28 W TDP.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a single USB Type-C display output and require no power connectors. Both are listed as Active production status with a release date of 2024-12-31. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, predecessor, or successor in the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy, but with an important caveat: no benchmark scores exist to confirm real-world behavior. Based strictly on recorded specifications, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger part. It doubles the FP32 compute throughput of the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, delivers higher memory bandwidth, uses a newer architecture, and packs more transistors into a smaller die. The 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 figure versus 4.147 TFLOPS is the single most decisive specification in the database.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is not without merit. It matches the Ryzen Z2 GPU in pixel rate, texture rate, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, clock speeds, memory capacity, API support, and TDP. For workloads that are fill-rate limited or bound by texture throughput, the two parts should perform similarly. The identical 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s rates suggest that certain rendering tasks will see little difference.

The Ryzen Z2 GPU should be the choice when FP32 compute matters, which covers most modern game rendering and general GPU compute workloads. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU makes sense in scenarios where the architectural simplicity of RDNA 2.0 is acceptable and the lower transistor count is preferable. Both parts consume 28 W, so power draw is not a deciding factor.

The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs against all GPUs in the database indicates neither part is exceptional by broader market standards. They sit at the median of all recorded GPUs. The equal percentiles reflect the lack of benchmark data rather than equal performance, so the specification gap should be treated as the primary evidence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, exactly double the 4.147 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Ryzen Z2 GPU come with 16 GB of memory. The memory type differs: LPDDR5 for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and LPDDR5X for the Ryzen Z2 GPU.

Q: Is there a difference in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Ryzen Z2 GPU provides 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU provides 102.4 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the Ryzen Z2 GPU runs faster memory at 7.5 Gbps effective versus 6.4 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the clock speeds of these GPUs?

A: Both GPUs have an 800 MHz base clock and a 2700 MHz boost clock. Clock speeds are identical in the recorded data.

Q: Which GPU has more transistors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU contains 25,390 million transistors, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU contains 13,100 million transistors. The Ryzen Z2 GPU also uses a smaller die at 178 mm² versus 208 mm².

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also both have a single USB Type-C display output.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU differ in several recorded fields. The chip is Rembrandt+ for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Hawk Point for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. The architecture is RDNA 2.0 versus RDNA 3.0. The process node is 6 nm for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and 4 nm for the Ryzen Z2 GPU, both from TSMC.

Transistor count differs substantially: 13,100 million for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU versus 25,390 million for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. Die size is 208 mm² for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and 178 mm² for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. Transistor density is 63.0 million per mm² versus 142.6 million per mm².

Memory type differs: LPDDR5 for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and LPDDR5X for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. Memory clock is 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, and 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 119.9 GB/s.

FP32 compute is 4.147 TFLOPS for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and 8.294 TFLOPS for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. FP16 compute is 8.294 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, and 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio for the Ryzen Z2 GPU.

All other specifications match: 16 GB memory capacity, 128-bit bus width, 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 12 ray tracing cores, 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate, 28 W TDP, no power connectors, one USB Type-C display output, and the same API support.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is defined by their chip designs and process technology. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC.

The 4 nm process allows the Ryzen Z2 GPU to pack 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, resulting in a density of 142.6 million transistors per mm². The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, on the 6 nm process, fits 13,100 million transistors into a larger 208 mm² die, giving a density of 63.0 million transistors per mm². The Ryzen Z2 GPU achieves more than double the transistor density, which directly enables its doubled FP32 throughput.

The RDNA 3.0 architecture in the Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute from 768 shading units, while RDNA 2.0 in the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS from the same number of shading units. This indicates that RDNA 3.0 achieves twice the per-shader FP32 throughput in this configuration. In FP16 workloads, the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning it compresses FP16 work into FP32 units, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 1:1 ratio, handling FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

Memory architecture also differs. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU pairs its Rembrandt+ chip with LPDDR5 memory, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU pairs Hawk Point with LPDDR5X. The newer memory standard provides higher effective speed at 7.5 Gbps versus 6.4 Gbps, yielding 119.9 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit interface.

Both architectures share identical fill rates, texture rates, and ray tracing core counts. The pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s are the same for both, indicating that the ROP and TMU throughput is not affected by the architectural change. The 12 ray tracing cores in each GPU suggest comparable ray tracing feature support, though the RDNA 3.0 implementation may differ in efficiency.

The identical 28 W TDP for both parts means the Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers double the FP32 performance within the same power envelope. This efficiency gain comes directly from the smaller 4 nm process and the RDNA 3.0 design. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves its lower performance at the same power draw, indicating it is less energy-efficient per unit of compute.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in every compute-heavy category based on the recorded data. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is exactly double the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, making it the clear choice for workloads that depend on shader math, general-purpose GPU compute, or any task that scales with floating-point operations. The doubled transistor count of 25,390 million versus 13,100 million supports this advantage, as does the higher transistor density of 142.6 million per mm² versus 63.0 million per mm².

Memory bandwidth is another win for the Ryzen Z2 GPU. At 119.9 GB/s, it exceeds the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 102.4 GB/s by 17.5 GB/s. This matters for texture-heavy scenes, large buffer transfers, and any workload where data movement becomes the bottleneck. The LPDDR5X memory type also indicates a newer memory controller design.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU does not win any category outright, but it matches the Ryzen Z2 GPU in several areas. Pixel fill rate is identical at 86.40 GPixel/s, so resolution-bound rasterization tasks should perform equally. Texture fill rate matches at 129.6 GTexel/s, meaning texture sampling throughput is the same. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores are all equal in count, so hardware resource availability is identical.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU also matches the Ryzen Z2 GPU on clock speeds, with both running at 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost. Memory capacity is the same at 16 GB. Both draw 28 W, so power consumption is not a differentiator. Both support the same API set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In practical terms, the Ryzen Z2 GPU is the superior part for any workload that leverages FP32 compute or benefits from higher memory bandwidth. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU holds its own in fill-rate-limited scenarios and offers the same feature set at the same power draw. The absence of benchmark scores in the database means these conclusions rest entirely on the recorded specifications, but the doubling of FP32 throughput and the 17 percent memory bandwidth advantage are decisive on paper.