AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for both GPUs shows no benchmark scores in the database, and the nearest rival lists are empty for each part. With zero wins assigned to either side in the head-to-head table, the numerical comparison must rely entirely on the specification-derived throughput figures.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile reaches 3.942 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part approximately 5.2% ahead in raw single-precision floating-point throughput. In FP16, the AMD part computes 8.294 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for Intel, maintaining the same proportional lead. These figures indicate the AMD solution holds a modest edge in compute-heavy workloads that scale with shader throughput.

Pixel throughput tells a different story. The AMD GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile manages 52.80 GPixel/s. That represents a 63.6% advantage for AMD in rasterization fill rate, which can translate to better performance in fill-limited scenarios such as high-resolution texture blending or heavy alpha effects. The texture rate is closer: AMD posts 129.6 GTexel/s versus Intel's 123.2 GTexel/s, a 5.2% margin in favor of AMD.

The Intel part does lead in one headline specification: shading units. Intel's 896 shading units outnumber AMD's 768, a 16.7% advantage in raw shader count. Intel also fields 56 texture mapping units versus AMD's 48, a 16.7% lead. However, the clock speed differential reverses the practical impact. AMD boosts to 2700 MHz, while Intel boosts to 2200 MHz. The higher boost clock allows AMD to convert fewer execution units into greater total throughput, as the FP32 and pixel rate numbers confirm.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the percentile ranking for both sits at 50.0 among all GPUs. With no measured workloads, the specification-level deltas above represent the only quantitative basis for comparison. The data shows AMD ahead in FP32, FP16, pixel fill, and texture fill, while Intel holds the advantage in execution unit counts only.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and different architectural lineages. AMD uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a chip labeled Rembrandt+, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Intel counters with the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The foundry difference is notable: TSMC handles the AMD part, while Intel fabricates its own GPU.

Transistor data exists only for the AMD side. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. Intel does not report transistor count or die size in the database, making a density comparison impossible.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. AMD integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). Intel relies on system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure, no dedicated memory size, and no dedicated bus width. This makes the AMD part a self-contained graphics solution, while Intel depends entirely on the host system's memory subsystem.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost states. AMD runs a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz. Intel starts at a much lower 300 MHz base but boosts to 2200 MHz. The boost delta favors AMD by 500 MHz, or 22.7% of Intel's boost figure.

Ray tracing support appears only on the AMD side, which lists 12 RT cores. Intel's entry does not report an RT core count. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, but AMD lists version 12_2 while Intel lists version 12_1. OpenGL support matches at 4.6, and Vulkan support matches at 1.4 on both parts.

Power delivery separates the two significantly. AMD draws 28 W TDP and requires no power connectors, indicating a fully integrated solution. Intel draws 65 W TDP, more than double the AMD figure. Intel's slot width is listed as IGP, and its bus interface is Ring Bus, while AMD does not list a slot width or bus interface. Display outputs also differ: AMD lists a single USB Type-C output, while Intel's outputs are portable device dependent.

Production status is Active for both. The Intel part released on 2023-12-13 and lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the AMD part released on 2024-12-31 with no predecessor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: AMD leads in FP32 with 4.147 TFLOPS versus Intel's 3.942 TFLOPS. The same 5.2% margin appears in FP16, where AMD computes 8.294 TFLOPS and Intel computes 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: AMD integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, no dedicated memory size, and no dedicated bus width.

Q: Does either GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists 12 RT cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile reports no RT core count in the database.

Q: What are the thermal design power figures?

A: AMD draws 28 W TDP with no power connectors required. Intel draws 65 W TDP, which is more than double the AMD figure.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: Intel has 896 shading units and 56 texture mapping units. AMD has 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. Intel leads by 16.7% in both counts.

Q: What API levels does each GPU support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

The data points toward the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU for scenarios where sustained compute throughput and integrated memory matter. It wins the FP32 race at 4.147 TFLOPS, the FP16 race at 8.294 TFLOPS, the pixel fill race at 86.40 GPixel/s, and the texture fill race at 129.6 GTexel/s. Its 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth removes reliance on system memory, and its 28 W TDP makes it a low-power option.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile suits contexts where execution unit count matters more than measured throughput. Its 896 shading units and 56 TMUs exceed AMD's counts, and its 65 W TDP suggests a higher power envelope that may be acceptable in larger chassis. Intel's system shared memory approach ties performance to the host platform, and its 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate trails AMD by a wide margin.

Pick AMD when the workload rewards fill rate, FP32 compute, and dedicated memory. Pick Intel when the platform already provides strong system memory and the higher 65 W power draw is acceptable. Both parts carry a 50.0 percentile ranking in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores, so the specification-level comparison remains the only available guide.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | Not reported |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | Not reported |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 768 | 896 |

| TMUs | 48 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 12 | Not reported |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 52.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 3.942 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Not reported | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not reported |

| Bus Interface | Not reported | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2023-12-13 |

| Predecessor | Not reported | HD Graphics-M |

The table captures all fields where the two devices differ. Notable gaps include Intel's missing transistor and die size data, AMD's missing slot width and bus interface, and the complete divergence in memory architecture. The release dates place Intel on the market roughly one year earlier, and Intel lists a predecessor while AMD does not.