AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Intel Arc A380E. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. This means neither part has an established performance delta from measured workloads, so the comparison rests on architectural specifications and derived throughput figures rather than captured frame-rate data.

The FP32 compute figures are nearly identical. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A380E delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 1.2% in favor of AMD, a margin that would be indistinguishable in real-world rendering. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD versus 8.192 TFLOPS for Intel, again a sub-2% gap. Both use a 2:1 ratio for FP16, so the relative standing does not change when moving to half-precision workloads.

Texture throughput slightly favors the AMD part. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU reaches 129.6 GTexel/s, while the Arc A380E reaches 128.0 GTexel/s. That is a 1.25% advantage for AMD. Pixel fill rate tells a different story: the AMD GPU outputs 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel GPU outputs 64.00 GPixel/s. This is a 35% advantage for the AMD part, driven by the higher boost clock of 2700 MHz against Intel's fixed 2000 MHz clock. In rasterization-heavy scenarios that stress pixel output, the AMD GPU holds a clear lead.

The memory subsystem splits the two in opposite directions. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU pairs 16 GB of LPDDR5 across a 128-bit bus for 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380E uses 6 GB of GDDR6 across a 96-bit bus for 186.0 GB/s. Intel's bandwidth is 81.6% higher, which matters for texture streaming, compute kernels, and any workload that saturates memory traffic. AMD counters with 10 GB more capacity, which matters for large asset sets and higher-resolution texture pools.

Clock behavior differs substantially. AMD's base clock sits at 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz, a 237.5% uplift from base to boost. Intel's clock is static at 2000 MHz for both base and boost, so there is no dynamic range. The AMD part's high boost clock explains its pixel rate advantage despite fewer shading units. Intel runs 1024 shading units against AMD's 768, a 33% unit count advantage, but the lower clock limits its peak throughput.

Ray tracing hardware also diverges. AMD integrates 12 ray tracing cores, while Intel integrates 8. Neither vendor publishes ray tracing throughput figures in the database, so the practical impact cannot be quantified, but the core count difference suggests AMD holds an advantage in ray-traced workloads that scale with core count.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios that depend on pixel output and FP32 compute density. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is the strongest single metric in the comparison, and it pairs with a 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 figure that edges out Intel. The 12 ray tracing cores give it a structural lead in ray-traced effects, assuming the architecture scales linearly with core count. The 16 GB memory capacity is also a decisive advantage for workloads that exceed 6 GB, such as large scene graphs, high-resolution texture packs, or machine learning inference with sizable model weights.

The Intel Arc A380E wins in memory bandwidth and raw shading unit count. Its 186.0 GB/s bandwidth is 81.6% higher than AMD's, which directly benefits bandwidth-bound tasks like heavy texture filtering, compute shaders that stream data, and higher-resolution render targets. The 1024 shading units, 33% more than AMD, give Intel a theoretical edge in shader-heavy workloads where the clock deficit does not become the limiting factor. The static 2000 MHz clock also means consistent performance without reliance on thermal headroom or power state transitions.

Power consumption separates the two clearly. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is rated at 28 W, while the Intel Arc A380E is rated at 75 W. That is a 2.68x difference in favor of AMD. The Intel part requires a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the AMD part lists no power connectors and no suggested PSU, indicating it draws entirely from the slot or carrier board. For embedded systems, handheld consoles, or fanless designs, the AMD part is the only realistic choice between the two.

Physical integration also favors AMD in compact scenarios. The Arc A380E is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no dimensions, no slot width, and no bus interface, which suggests it is intended for direct board integration rather than as a discrete card. The display outputs reinforce this: AMD offers a single USB Type-C output, while Intel offers four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Intel part is built for multi-display setups, the AMD part for a single integrated display path.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs aimed at different deployment models. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a low-power, high-clock, memory-heavy part built for integrated systems. The 28 W TDP, absence of power connectors, and single USB Type-C output place it in handhelds, thin clients, or embedded boards where space and thermal budgets are tight. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 16 GB LPDDR5 capacity give it genuine rendering muscle despite the low power envelope.

The Intel Arc A380E is a discrete, single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. It is designed for multi-display workstations, edge servers, or industrial PCs where bandwidth and display connectivity matter more than power efficiency. Its 186.0 GB/s bandwidth is the standout specification, and the 1024 shading units provide a solid base for compute workloads.

From a pure performance standpoint, the two are near equals in FP32 and FP16 throughput, with AMD holding a 1.2% FP32 lead and Intel holding a 81.6% bandwidth lead. The pixel rate advantage goes decisively to AMD at 35% higher than Intel. The ray tracing core count favors AMD at 12 versus 8, but without measured ray tracing scores, that remains a structural observation rather than a proven result.

The production status differs meaningfully. AMD lists the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU as Active, while Intel lists the Arc A380E as End-of-life with a successor named Battlemage. The Arc A380E's predecessor is Xe Graphics. This means the Intel part is a legacy product, while the AMD part is still in production. For new designs, that favors AMD on availability and long-term support.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile ranking of 50 for both reflects a neutral position in the database rather than a measured performance tier. Buyers should weigh the architectural differences directly: choose the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU for low-power integration, high pixel throughput, and large memory capacity; choose the Intel Arc A380E for bandwidth-heavy workloads, multi-display output, and a standard discrete card form factor. The data does not support a single overall winner, only a clear split by use case.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS, which is 1.2% higher than the Intel Arc A380E's 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Intel Arc A380E provides 186.0 GB/s, which is 81.6% higher than the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is rated at 28 W, while the Intel Arc A380E is rated at 75 W, a 2.68x difference.

Q: How many ray tracing cores does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc A380E has 8.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the Intel Arc A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What display outputs are available on each?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU offers 1x USB Type-C, while the Intel Arc A380E offers 4x DisplayPort 2.0.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is Active, while the Intel Arc A380E is End-of-life, with Battlemage listed as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. The die contains 13,100 million transistors across 208 mm², yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The Intel Arc A380E uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, also on TSMC's 6 nm process, but with 7,200 million transistors across 157 mm², a density of 45.9 million per mm². AMD packs 81.9% more transistors into a 32.5% larger die.

The compute layout differs in scale. AMD configures 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Intel configures 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Intel has 33% more shading units and 33% more TMUs, while ROP counts match at 32. The ray tracing core counts differ as well: 12 for AMD, 8 for Intel.

Clock strategy is a major architectural divergence. AMD runs a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, a wide dynamic range that allows aggressive power scaling. Intel runs a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no boost headroom. This explains why AMD achieves higher pixel throughput despite fewer ROPs: the 2700 MHz boost clock multiplies the ROP count more effectively.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. AMD uses LPDDR5 at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, 16 GB capacity, and a 128-bit bus. Intel uses GDDR6 at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective speed, 6 GB capacity, and a 96-bit bus. The bus widths differ by 33% in AMD's favor, but the GDDR6 signaling rate more than compensates, giving Intel the bandwidth lead.

Power delivery separates the two designs. AMD's 28 W TDP requires no power connectors and no suggested PSU, indicating a board-integrated or low-power slot design. Intel's 75 W TDP also uses no power connectors, but the database lists a 250 W suggested PSU, reflecting the higher system-level requirements of a discrete card. Intel's card is single-slot and measures 254 mm by 127 mm by 20 mm; AMD lists no physical dimensions.

Interface and output capabilities differ sharply. Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. AMD lists no bus interface and provides a single USB Type-C output. This reflects the intended usage: the Arc A380E as a standalone card for multi-monitor setups, the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU as an embedded or handheld component.

API support is identical. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The feature set at the API level does not differentiate the two.

Release timing shows AMD's part is newer. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a release date of December 31, 2024, while the Arc A380E shipped March 31, 2024, nine months earlier. The Arc A380E is marked End-of-life with Battlemage as its successor, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU remains Active with no successor listed. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The process node is the same for both: TSMC 6 nm. The foundry is identical. The architectural lineage, however, is distinct: RDNA 2.0 is a console-derived GPU generation, while Xe-HPG is Intel's dedicated graphics architecture. The transistor density difference, 63.0M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm², reflects AMD's denser layout, likely due to the integrated memory controller for LPDDR5 and the larger 16 GB configuration.