AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Intel Arc A310E. Both products have an average benchmark score of 0, and neither has any entries in its nearest rivals list. The wins tally stands at 0 for each part. This absence of measured data means direct performance comparisons must be derived from the architectural and specification records, not from observed frame rates or compute scores.

The most significant mathematical gap appears in raw throughput figures. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part approximately 35% ahead in single-precision floating-point throughput based on the recorded figures. In FP16, the AMD part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel part, again a roughly 35% advantage. These are theoretical peak rates from the specification sheet, not application-level results, but they establish the AMD processor as the higher-compute device.

Pixel and texture throughput tell a different story. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU records a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc A310E records 32.00 GPixel/s and 64.00 GTexel/s. The AMD part is 2.7 times faster in pixel fill and just over 2 times faster in texture fill. This is a decisive margin in favor of the AMD silicon for fill-rate-bound workloads. The Intel part's lower ROPS count of 16 versus 32 and its 32 TMUs versus 48 explain the deficit in these measured specification-derived rates.

Clock behavior offers a contrasting point. The Intel Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has an 800 MHz base clock and a 2700 MHz boost clock. The AMD boost clock is 35% higher than the Intel sustained clock, but the AMD base clock is 60% lower than the Intel base clock. This suggests the AMD part relies heavily on boost behavior to reach its performance envelope, while the Intel part maintains a constant frequency. Sustained-load scenarios could narrow the gap if the AMD silicon cannot hold boost, but the database records no power or thermal curves to confirm that behavior.

Memory bandwidth introduces another divergence. The Intel Arc A310E records 124.0 GB/s across a 64-bit bus using GDDR6 at 15.5 Gbps effective. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU records 102.4 GB/s across a 128-bit bus using LPDDR5 at 6.4 Gbps effective. Intel holds a 21% bandwidth advantage despite using half the bus width, because its memory clocks more than twice as fast. The AMD part uses twice the bus width but much slower memory. For bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the Intel part has the recorded edge. For capacity-sensitive workloads, the AMD part has 16 GB versus 4 GB, a 4 times advantage.

The transistor and die records show density differences. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU packs 13,100 million transistors into 208 mm², yielding 63.0M transistors per mm². The Intel Arc A310E packs 7,200 million transistors into 157 mm², yielding 45.9M per mm². Both use TSMC's 6 nm process, but AMD achieves 37% higher transistor density. The AMD die is 32% larger in area. This density gap likely reflects different design priorities: AMD integrates more execution resources per area, while Intel spreads a smaller transistor budget across a smaller die.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU as the stronger compute and fill-rate device. It leads in FP32 by 1.075 TFLOPS, in FP16 by 2.150 TFLOPS, in pixel rate by 54.40 GPixel/s, and in texture rate by 65.6 GTexel/s. It also offers 4 times the memory capacity (16 GB versus 4 GB) and 12 RT cores versus 6. For workloads that stress shading, texturing, ray tracing, or large memory footprints, the AMD part holds the specification advantage.

The Intel Arc A310E claims the bandwidth crown at 124.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, a 21% lead, and runs at a constant 2000 MHz with no boost variance. It also draws 75 W versus 28 W, which is a higher power envelope but not necessarily a disadvantage in slots where power is available. The Intel part is the only one of the two with a recorded bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x8), a single-slot form factor, and dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The AMD part records no slot width, no length, no bus interface, and a single USB Type-C display output.

Users who need a compact, low-power compute device with high FP32 throughput and large memory should favor the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. Users who need higher memory bandwidth, a constant clock, multi-display output (4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0), and a defined physical footprint should favor the Intel Arc A310E. Neither part has measured benchmark scores in the database, so both percentile values sit at 50, indicating no performance data has been recorded to differentiate them empirically.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process, so the process node is identical. The foundry is the same. The differences lie in how each architecture organizes its execution resources.

AMD's RDNA 2.0 design uses 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. Intel's Xe-HPG design uses 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The shading unit count matches exactly, but AMD fields 50% more TMUs, 100% more ROPs, and 100% more RT cores. This explains the large fill-rate and ray-tracing resource advantages for AMD. The Intel part compensates with a higher constant clock of 2000 MHz against AMD's 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost.

The memory subsystems reflect different architectural philosophies. AMD pairs a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus with 16 GB at 6.4 Gbps effective, delivering 102.4 GB/s. Intel pairs a 64-bit GDDR6 bus with 4 GB at 15.5 Gbps effective, delivering 124.0 GB/s. AMD prioritizes capacity and bus width; Intel prioritizes per-pin bandwidth and simplicity. The GDDR6 memory in the Intel part runs at more than double the effective data rate of the LPDDR5 in the AMD part.

API support is identical in the recorded data. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither lists tensor cores. The AMD part lists one USB Type-C display output; the Intel part lists four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Intel part has a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface; the AMD part records no bus interface at all.

Production status differs. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is marked Active, with a release date of 2024-12-31. The Intel Arc A310E is marked End-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31 and a successor named Battlemage. The Intel part's predecessor is listed as Xe Graphics. The AMD part lists no predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Intel Arc A310E differ on nearly every specification field except shading units, process node, foundry, API set, and launch MSRP (both have no recorded MSRP). The AMD part has a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die at 63.0M transistors per mm². The Intel part uses the same 6 nm TSMC process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die at 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply. AMD records 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost, with memory at 800 MHz or 6.4 Gbps effective. Intel records 2000 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, with memory at 1937 MHz or 15.5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity and type differ: AMD has 16 GB LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus; Intel has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth favors Intel at 124.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Compute resources: both have 768 shading units. AMD has 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs; Intel has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. RT cores: AMD has 12, Intel has 6. Pixel rate: 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD, 32.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate: 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD, 64.00 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32: 4.147 TFLOPS for AMD, 3.072 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD, 6.144 TFLOPS for Intel, both at 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs differ. AMD has a 28 W TDP with no power connectors, no slot width, no dimensions, and no suggested PSU. Intel has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, a single-slot width, dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C; Intel has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. Bus interface: AMD records none; Intel records PCIe 4.0 x8. Production status: AMD Active; Intel End-of-life. Release dates: AMD 2024-12-31; Intel 2024-03-31. The Intel part has a successor (Battlemage) and predecessor (Xe Graphics); the AMD part has neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU records 4.147 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A310E records 3.072 TFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately 35% higher.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A310E records 124.0 GB/s across a 64-bit GDDR6 bus at 15.5 Gbps effective. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU records 102.4 GB/s across a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus at 6.4 Gbps effective. Intel leads by 21%.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory. The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. AMD offers 4 times the capacity.

Q: What are the TDP figures for each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP. The Intel Arc A310E has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both record DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither lists tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 RT cores. The Intel Arc A310E has 6 RT cores. AMD has double the count.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is marked Active with a release date of 2024-12-31. The Intel Arc A310E is marked End-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31 and a successor named Battlemage.