AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc G3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU or the Intel Arc G3. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database. Without measured frame rates, compute scores, or synthetic test results, a numerical head-to-head comparison cannot be constructed from the available data. The absence of benchmark entries means that performance parity or advantage between these two parts remains unquantified in the database.

The two GPUs do share identical API feature levels, which provides a partial basis for comparison. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This indicates that both parts can execute the same modern graphics workloads from an API standpoint. However, the underlying hardware capabilities differ substantially, and those differences will shape real-world behavior in ways that raw API support alone cannot capture.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc G3 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. The Intel part holds a 48.1% advantage in raw single-precision floating-point throughput. In FP16 compute, the AMD part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS, while the Intel part reaches 12.29 TFLOPS, a 48.2% lead for Intel. These figures represent theoretical peak throughput, not measured application performance, but they establish the Intel Arc G3 as the higher-throughput processor on paper.

Texture and pixel processing rates tell a different story. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 129.6 GTexel/s, compared to 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc G3. That gives AMD a 35.0% advantage in texture fill rate. In pixel throughput, the AMD part reaches 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel part reaches 48.00 GPixel/s, a 80.0% advantage for AMD. These fill-rate metrics suggest that the AMD design allocates more hardware resources to texture mapping units and render output units relative to its compute throughput.

The Intel Arc G3 carries 1280 shading units, compared to 768 shading units on the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. The Intel part also has more shader processors, though it trails in TMUs and ROPs. The AMD part has 48 texture mapping units and 32 render output units, while the Intel part has 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs. The higher shading unit count on the Intel side aligns with its higher FP32 throughput, but the lower ROP count limits its pixel generation capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing processes and foundries. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Arc G3 uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD chip, codenamed Rembrandt+, contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Intel die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database. The 3 nm node gives Intel a process-technology advantage in principle, but the database does not include measured power efficiency or thermal data to confirm practical benefits.

The microarchitectures differ fundamentally. AMD uses RDNA 2.0, a graphics architecture designed for console-class GPUs. Intel uses Xe3-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics-M family built around the Panther Lake chip. The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for mobile and portable systems. These architectural lineages target different design goals, with RDNA 2.0 emphasizing balanced rasterization throughput and Xe3-LPG focusing on compute-heavy workloads.

Memory configuration separates the two parts sharply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel Arc G3 uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM. Its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent. This means the Intel part relies entirely on the host system's memory subsystem, while the AMD part has a fixed, dedicated memory pool. In workloads sensitive to memory bandwidth, the AMD part's 102.4 GB/s allocation provides a deterministic advantage, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth varies with the platform.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc G3 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The AMD part has both a higher base clock and a higher boost clock. Sustained performance under load will depend on thermal and power limits, but the recorded clock ranges favor AMD.

Ray tracing hardware is present on both parts. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc G3 includes 10. The database does not include ray tracing benchmark scores, so the practical impact of this difference cannot be quantified. Power consumption is close: the AMD part has a TDP of 28 W, and the Intel part has a TDP of 25 W. The 3 W gap is minor, but the AMD part delivers its higher fill rates and dedicated memory within that envelope.

Physical integration differs as well. The Intel Arc G3 is an integrated graphics processor, listed with an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded slot width or bus interface, and its display output is a single USB Type-C port. The Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The AMD part requires no power connectors, and the Intel part also requires none. The AMD part is a discrete-style GPU in a portable form factor, while the Intel part is fused into the Panther Lake platform.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 6.144 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part's 4.147 TFLOPS by 48.1%. Its FP16 figure of 12.29 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS by 48.2%. For workloads that scale with shader throughput, such as compute-heavy effects, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU tasks, the Intel part offers more theoretical capacity. Its 1280 shading units provide a 66.7% higher shader count than the AMD part's 768, reinforcing this compute advantage.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in fixed-function throughput. Its texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s beats the Intel part's 96.00 GTexel/s by 35.0%. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s beats the Intel part's 48.00 GPixel/s by 80.0%. For rasterization-heavy workloads, including conventional game rendering with heavy texture sampling and pixel shading, the AMD part has a substantial edge. The 32 ROPs on the AMD side versus 20 on the Intel side support higher resolution output and more efficient fill-limited rendering.

Memory-bound scenarios favor AMD. The dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, while the Intel part's system shared memory creates dependency on host memory speed and capacity. The AMD part also has a higher boost clock at 2700 MHz versus 2400 MHz, which can help latency-sensitive workloads. The Intel part's higher base clock advantage does not exist; AMD leads in both base and boost clocks.

The Intel Arc G3 has a lower TDP at 25 W versus 28 W for AMD, giving it a modest power envelope advantage. For thermally constrained portable devices, that 3 W difference could matter. However, the AMD part delivers more fill rate and dedicated memory within its slightly higher power budget. The Intel part's 3 nm process node, manufactured by Intel, may offer efficiency benefits, but no measured power efficiency data appears in the database.

The AMD part has more ray tracing cores at 12 versus 10. The database does not include ray tracing performance metrics, so the practical advantage remains speculative. Both parts support the same DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, which includes ray tracing and mesh shaders, so either part can run the same ray-traced titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc G3 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 48.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 4.147 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU have dedicated memory?

A: Yes, it has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc G3 uses system shared memory, so its bandwidth and capacity depend on the host system.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc G3 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. AMD leads in both metrics.

Q: What is the power consumption of each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel Arc G3 has a TDP of 25 W. The difference is 3 W in favor of Intel.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature levels are identical for both parts.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc G3 has 1280 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 768. The Intel part has 66.7% more shading units.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc G3 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD die is 208 mm² with 13,100 million transistors; Intel's die size and transistor count are not recorded.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture and pixel fill rates?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 129.6 GTexel/s and 86.40 GPixel/s. The Intel Arc G3 achieves 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s. AMD leads by 35.0% in texture rate and 80.0% in pixel rate.

The Verdict

The database places both GPUs at the 50th percentile among all recorded GPUs, with no benchmark scores to differentiate them. The choice between them depends on workload characteristics rather than measured performance.

The Intel Arc G3 suits compute-oriented tasks. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 throughput, and 1280 shading units give it a clear theoretical advantage in shader-limited and general-purpose compute workloads. Its 3 nm process node and lower 25 W TDP make it an efficient choice for integrated, portable system designs where power is constrained. The system shared memory configuration ties its performance to the host platform, so it performs best in platforms with fast memory subsystems.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU suits rasterization-heavy workloads. Its 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate, 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 32 ROPs, and dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth give it a strong position for conventional game rendering, high-resolution output, and memory-sensitive applications. Its higher boost clock of 2700 MHz and its 12 ray tracing cores add further advantages. The 28 W TDP is only slightly higher than Intel's, and the dedicated memory removes platform dependency.

For a portable gaming device or any system where rendering throughput and memory determinism matter more than raw compute, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is the stronger option based on the recorded specifications. For a platform where compute density, integrated design, and lower power consumption are priorities, the Intel Arc G3 has the advantage. The absence of actual benchmark scores means these conclusions rest on architectural and specification differences, not measured outcomes. The two parts are not direct substitutes; they embody different design philosophies, and the data supports each one in its respective domain.