AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc 130T Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile. Both entries have an average benchmark score of zero and no listed benchmark results. Consequently, the wins field is empty for both products, and no comparative performance percentages can be drawn from direct measurements.

What the data does show are the theoretical throughput ceilings derived from each chip’s architecture. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part approximately 5.2% ahead in raw single-precision floating-point work. In FP16, the AMD part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the Intel part, again a lead of about 5.2% for the AMD chip.

Pixel throughput tells the opposite story. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile records 61.60 GPixel/s. The AMD part is roughly 40% faster in fill-rate-limited scenarios, which often matters in rasterization-heavy workloads at lower resolutions. Texture rate is closer: 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 123.2 GTexel/s for Intel, a margin of about 5.2% in favor of the AMD chip.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile counters with a higher shading unit count. It has 896 shading units versus 768 on the AMD part, a 16.7% advantage in raw shader ALU count. However, the AMD chip’s higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 2200 MHz for Intel compensates in the FP32 figures. The Intel part also has more texture mapping units, 56 versus 48, yet the AMD chip still leads in texture rate because of its clock advantage.

Ray tracing hardware differs in quantity. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 RT cores, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 7 RT cores. There are no ray tracing benchmark scores in the database, so the practical impact of that 5-core difference cannot be quantified from recorded results. The AMD part also has 32 ROPs versus 28 ROPs on the Intel part, which aligns with its higher pixel rate.

Since there are no measured benchmark scores, the analysis rests on architectural throughput ceilings. The AMD chip wins in FP32, FP16, pixel fill, and texture fill. The Intel chip wins in shading unit count and TMU count, but those theoretical advantages do not translate into higher computed throughput in the recorded specifications.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC and contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 63.0 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a discrete-class integrated GPU design in the Console GPU (AMD) generation.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Arrow Lake-H chip with Xe-LPG+ architecture. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no density figure can be derived. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation and is classified as an IGP with a slot width of IGP and a bus interface of IGP.

Process node is a clear differentiator. The Intel part uses a 5 nm process versus 6 nm for the AMD part. Finer geometry generally allows for higher efficiency, but the database does not include efficiency benchmarks, so the practical effect remains unmeasured.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses dedicated LPDDR5 memory with 16 GB capacity, a 128 bit bus, and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock is listed at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses system shared memory with a system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. Its memory clock is listed as system shared. This means the AMD part has a fixed, dedicated memory pool with a known bandwidth figure, while the Intel part depends entirely on the host platform’s memory subsystem.

The AMD chip’s memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is a fixed specification. The Intel chip’s bandwidth is system dependent, so no direct comparison can be made. In practice, a dedicated LPDDR5 pool can avoid contention with the CPU for memory access, but the database does not include measurements of that effect.

API support is identical on paper. Both parts list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. That means both support the same high-level graphics feature sets from a software interface standpoint.

The Intel part has a predecessor listed as HD Graphics-M. The AMD part has no predecessor listed. Both are currently active in production status. The AMD part has a release date of 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z, while the Intel part has a release date of 2025-01-12T17:00:00.000Z. The Intel part is therefore newer by roughly two weeks in the database.

Power connectors differ. The AMD part lists none, while the Intel part has no power connector entry. The AMD part has a TDP of 28 W, and the Intel part has a TDP of 35 W. The Intel part consumes 7 W more according to the listed TDP figures.

Display outputs also differ. The AMD part lists 1x USB Type-C. The Intel part lists portable device dependent outputs, meaning its display connectivity depends on the host device.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU leads with 4.147 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc 130T Mobile. That is roughly a 5.2% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a dedicated LPDDR5 pool of 16 GB with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed figure is recorded.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 896 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 768. That is a 16.7% higher count for the Intel part, though the AMD part still leads in FP32 TFLOPS due to its higher boost clock.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU records 86.40 GPixel/s, and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile records 61.60 GPixel/s. The AMD part is about 40% faster in pixel throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel part draws 7 W more according to the listed specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field.

Process node: AMD uses 6 nm, Intel uses 5 nm. Foundry is TSMC for both.

Transistors: AMD lists 13,100 million, Intel lists unknown. Die size: AMD lists 208 mm², Intel lists unknown. Transistor density: AMD lists 63.0M / mm², Intel lists none.

Base clock: AMD at 800 MHz, Intel at 300 MHz. Boost clock: AMD at 2700 MHz, Intel at 2200 MHz. Memory clock: AMD at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, Intel at system shared.

Memory size: AMD at 16 GB, Intel at system shared. Memory type: AMD at LPDDR5, Intel at system shared. Bus width: AMD at 128 bit, Intel at system shared. Bandwidth: AMD at 102.4 GB/s, Intel at system dependent.

Shading units: AMD at 768, Intel at 896. TMUs: AMD at 48, Intel at 56. ROPs: AMD at 32, Intel at 28. RT cores: AMD at 12, Intel at 7.

Pixel rate: AMD at 86.40 GPixel/s, Intel at 61.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD at 129.6 GTexel/s, Intel at 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD at 4.147 TFLOPS, Intel at 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16: AMD at 8.294 TFLOPS, Intel at 7.885 TFLOPS.

TDP: AMD at 28 W, Intel at 35 W. Slot width: AMD none, Intel at IGP. Power connectors: AMD at none, Intel none listed. Bus interface: AMD none, Intel at IGP.

Display outputs: AMD at 1x USB Type-C, Intel at portable device dependent.

Release date: AMD at 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z, Intel at 2025-01-12T17:00:00.000Z. Production status: both active.

Predecessor: AMD none, Intel at HD Graphics-M. Successor: both none.

Launch MSRP: neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.

Both share DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have no tensor cores listed.

The Verdict

The database shows two different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a fixed-configuration part with dedicated memory, a higher boost clock, and higher computed throughput in FP32, FP16, pixel fill, and texture fill. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile is an integrated part that relies on system shared memory, has a lower boost clock, and a lower TDP envelope relative to its 35 W rating.

The AMD part leads in every computed throughput metric that the database records. Its pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s versus 61.60 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, and its FP32 output is 4.147 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. It also has more ROPs, 32 versus 28, and more RT cores, 12 versus 7.

The Intel part has more shading units, 896 versus 768, and more TMUs, 56 versus 48. It also runs on a smaller 5 nm process node versus 6 nm. Those advantages do not translate into higher computed throughput in the recorded specifications because the AMD part’s boost clock is 2700 MHz versus 2200 MHz for Intel.

The memory situation heavily favors the AMD part in terms of known fixed specifications. A 16 GB LPDDR5 pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is clearly defined. The Intel part’s system shared memory means its performance depends on the host platform, which the database does not quantify.

The TDP figures give the Intel part a higher power allowance at 35 W versus 28 W, yet it still records lower computed throughput. That suggests the AMD architecture extracts more throughput per watt from the recorded data, though the database does not include efficiency benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios that depend on raw compute throughput and fixed memory bandwidth. Its 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 figures give it the edge in general-purpose GPU compute tasks. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate makes it stronger for fill-rate-bound rendering. Its 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate supports higher texture throughput. Its 12 RT cores provide more ray tracing hardware than the Intel part’s 7, though no benchmark scores confirm the practical gain. Its dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth removes dependence on system memory configuration.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins in shading unit count and TMU count. With 896 shading units and 56 TMUs, it has more parallel ALUs and texture units than the AMD part. Its 5 nm process node is a smaller geometry than the 6 nm AMD part. Its 35 W TDP gives it a higher power envelope. It also has a lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 800 MHz, which could indicate more aggressive power management in idle states, though the database does not include power draw measurements.

The Intel part is an IGP with system shared memory, so it wins in platform simplicity by not requiring dedicated memory. The AMD part is a separate chip with its own memory pool, making it a more self-contained solution.

For systems where memory bandwidth is a known constraint, the AMD part’s fixed 102.4 GB/s is predictable. For systems where the host platform has high-bandwidth shared memory, the Intel part could potentially perform differently, but the database records no measurements to support that.

In pure specification terms, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in FP32, FP16, pixel rate, texture rate, ROP count, RT core count, and memory specification. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins in shading unit count, TMU count, process node size, TDP, and release date recency.