AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc A380E x2 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Intel Arc A380E x2?

A: The AMD chip uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process with 13,100 million transistors, while the Intel chip uses Xe-HPG architecture on the same 6 nm process but with 7,200 million transistors. The AMD part is built around the Rembrandt+ chip, while Intel uses the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus delivering 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. This means Intel has higher bandwidth but far less capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD part delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16, while the Intel part delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16. The AMD GPU leads by a small margin in both metrics.

Q: What are the thermal and power characteristics of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W with no power connectors required. The Intel Arc A380E x2 has a TDP of 130 W, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W power supply.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU offers a single USB Type-C display output. The Intel Arc A380E x2 provides eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, which is a substantial difference for multi-display configurations.

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is listed as Active in production, with a release date of 2024-12-31. The Intel Arc A380E x2 is listed as End-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31 and a successor named Battlemage.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Intel Arc A380E x2 represent two different design philosophies within the same manufacturing node. Both use TSMC's 6 nm process, but the chip sizes diverge significantly. The AMD chip measures 208 mm² with 13,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Intel chip is smaller at 157 mm² with 7,200 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 45.9M per mm².

The AMD architecture, RDNA 2.0, is built around the Rembrandt+ chip and belongs to the Console GPU generation. Intel's Xe-HPG architecture uses the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation, which is part of the Arc 3 product line. These architectural choices lead to different resource allocations. The AMD GPU contains 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel GPU contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. Intel has more shading units and TMUs, while AMD has more RT cores.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz with a boost clock of 2700 MHz, allowing for significant dynamic range. The Intel GPU runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost clocks. Memory clocks show a similar divergence: AMD uses 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective data rate, while Intel uses 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The physical form factors differ as well. The Intel card is a single-slot design measuring 265 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The AMD GPU has no listed dimensions or bus interface, and it requires no power connectors versus Intel's single 6-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and both have zero wins in the comparison database. However, the specification data provides a basis for analytical comparison across several performance metrics.

In pixel throughput, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 86.40 GPixel/s compared to the Intel Arc A380E x2's 64.00 GPixel/s. This represents a 35% advantage for AMD in pixel fill rate, which translates to faster rasterization of simple scenes and better performance in pixel-bound workloads.

Texture throughput is nearly identical. AMD achieves 129.6 GTexel/s while Intel achieves 128.0 GTexel/s, a difference of only 1.25% in favor of AMD. This near-parity reflects the balance between AMD's higher clock speed and Intel's larger number of texture mapping units.

In FP32 compute, AMD delivers 4.147 TFLOPS against Intel's 4.096 TFLOPS, a margin of approximately 1.2%. The FP16 results follow the same pattern: AMD produces 8.294 TFLOPS versus Intel's 8.192 TFLOPS, again roughly 1.2% higher. These differences are small enough to be within run-to-run variance in real workloads, but the direction consistently favors AMD.

Memory bandwidth tells a different story. Intel's GDDR6 memory provides 186.0 GB/s, which is 81.6% higher than AMD's 102.4 GB/s from LPDDR5. This bandwidth advantage is substantial and would benefit memory-intensive workloads such as large textures, compute shaders with high memory traffic, or ray tracing acceleration structures.

The ray tracing core count favors AMD with 12 RT cores versus Intel's 8 RT cores, a 50% advantage. Combined with the higher pixel rate, AMD appears better positioned for ray-traced effects in scenarios where RT core throughput is the limiting factor, though the memory bandwidth deficit could offset some of this advantage in practice.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Intel Arc A380E x2 are closely matched in raw compute throughput, with AMD holding a slight edge in FP32 and FP16 performance. The AMD part also leads in pixel fill rate and ray tracing core count. However, Intel's memory bandwidth is substantially higher, which could provide advantages in memory-bound scenarios.

The AMD GPU's 28 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments, while the Intel GPU's 130 W TDP requires a more robust power delivery system. The AMD part needs no power connectors, whereas Intel requires a 6-pin connector and a 300 W power supply recommendation.

For memory capacity, AMD offers 16 GB versus Intel's 6 GB, which is a significant difference for workloads that require large working sets. The AMD GPU also has active production status, while the Intel GPU is end-of-life with a successor already named.

The Intel GPU provides eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs compared to AMD's single USB Type-C output, making Intel the clear choice for multi-display configurations. The AMD GPU's compact, low-power design with no external power requirement suggests deployment in embedded or mobile form factors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | Intel Arc A380E x2 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Rembrandt+ | DG2-128 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Generation | Console GPU (AMD) | Alchemist (Arc 3) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 157 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 45.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective | 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 186.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 128.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | Not listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | 8x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2024-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | Not listed | Battlemage |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios prioritizing pixel fill rate, delivering 86.40 GPixel/s compared to Intel's 64.00 GPixel/s. The 35% advantage in this metric makes AMD the stronger candidate for rasterization-heavy workloads at high resolutions. The AMD part also wins in ray tracing core count with 12 RT cores versus 8, offering 50% more hardware units for ray-traced effects.

The AMD GPU wins in power efficiency by a wide margin. Its 28 W TDP versus Intel's 130 W TDP means the AMD part consumes roughly one-fifth the power while delivering nearly identical compute throughput. For battery-powered devices, fanless designs, or thermally constrained enclosures, this difference is decisive. The absence of power connectors simplifies installation.

The AMD GPU wins in memory capacity with 16 GB versus 6 GB. Workloads that need large frame buffers, extensive geometry data, or substantial texture atlases will benefit from the additional capacity. The active production status also favors AMD for long-term availability.

The Intel Arc A380E x2 wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 186.0 GB/s versus AMD's 102.4 GB/s. This 81.6% advantage matters for memory-bound compute kernels, high-resolution texture streaming, and workloads where data movement dominates execution time. The Intel part also wins in shading unit count with 1024 versus 768, offering 33% more parallel shader execution units.

Intel wins decisively in display connectivity with eight mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs against AMD's single USB Type-C port. Multi-monitor setups, video walls, or signage applications require this level of output flexibility. The Intel GPU also wins in physical integration with a defined single-slot form factor and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, providing predictable installation requirements.

For raw compute throughput, the two GPUs are effectively tied, with AMD leading by approximately 1.2% in both FP32 and FP16. The texture rate is similarly matched at 129.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. Users should select based on the specific constraints of their application: AMD for power-limited, capacity-hungry, or ray-tracing-focused workloads, and Intel for bandwidth-intensive, multi-display, or memory-latency-sensitive scenarios.