AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Comparison

AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile are two integrated-class graphics solutions aimed at portable devices, yet they approach the task from different architectural and manufacturing standpoints. The database records both parts at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with no direct head-to-head benchmark results available, so the comparison rests on their recorded specifications and derived performance metrics. The AMD part, built on a 6 nm process, delivers a boost clock of 2700 MHz and 4.147 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel part, on a 10 nm node, reaches 2250 MHz and 4.608 TFLOPS FP32. These numbers indicate a close contest where the Intel solution holds a raw throughput edge, but the AMD solution counters with higher clock speeds and a dedicated memory interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently holds no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, meaning the comparison must be drawn from their theoretical peak rates and architectural capabilities. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile leads in raw compute throughput, with 4.608 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.147 TFLOPS for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, a difference of approximately 11%. This advantage stems from Intel’s larger execution resource pool, 1024 shading units compared to AMD’s 768, alongside 64 texture mapping units versus 48. In texture fill rate, Intel again takes the lead at 144.0 GTexel/s against 129.6 GTexel/s, a margin of 11.1%. For pixel throughput, however, the AMD part reverses the trend, recording 86.40 GPixel/s against Intel’s 72.00 GPixel/s, a 20% advantage, driven by its higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 2250 MHz.

In half-precision compute, Intel extends its lead with 9.216 TFLOPS FP16 versus AMD’s 8.294 TFLOPS, again an 11% gap. The AMD solution, though, operates at a higher base clock of 800 MHz compared to Intel’s 300 MHz, which suggests better sustained performance in lightly threaded or power-constrained scenarios. Memory bandwidth is a decisive differentiator: the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s, whereas the Intel part relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the AMD part offers predictable, dedicated bandwidth, while the Intel part’s performance will vary based on the host platform’s memory configuration. The AMD GPU also has 12 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile’s recorded specifications, giving it a potential edge in ray-traced workloads despite the lower raw FP32 count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU boosts to 2700 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile reaches 2250 MHz, a difference of 450 MHz in AMD’s favor.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU provides 102.4 GB/s via 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent, meaning no fixed figure is recorded.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have ray tracing cores?

A: No, the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores recorded, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU includes 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the pixel fill rates for both GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, exceeding the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile’s 72.00 GPixel/s by 20%.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 1024 shading units, compared to 768 for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, a 33% advantage for Intel.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

The Verdict

The data indicates a split decision. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is the stronger choice for raw compute throughput, with higher FP32 performance (4.608 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS), more shading units (1024 versus 768), and a higher texture fill rate (144.0 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s). These advantages suggest better performance in shader-heavy or texture-bound workloads. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, however, counters with a 20% higher pixel rate (86.40 GPixel/s versus 72.00 GPixel/s), dedicated memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and 12 ray tracing cores, which the Intel part lacks. For scenarios involving ray tracing or fixed memory bandwidth requirements, the AMD solution holds the edge. Users needing maximum raw compute or working with system-shared memory flexibility should favor the Intel part, while those prioritizing pixel throughput or ray tracing capabilities should select the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on several recorded specifications. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 2250 MHz. Memory differs fundamentally: AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas Intel relies on system-shared memory with no fixed size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. Shading units stand at 768 for AMD versus 1024 for Intel; texture mapping units at 48 versus 64; and render output units are equal at 32 for both. The AMD part includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part records none. Pixel rate favors AMD at 86.40 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 72.00 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors Intel at 144.0 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 129.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on Intel (4.608 TFLOPS) than AMD (4.147 TFLOPS), and FP16 follows suit (9.216 versus 8.294 TFLOPS). Power consumption is identical at 28 W for both. The AMD part has a single USB Type-C display output, while Intel’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The bus interface is not recorded for AMD but is a Ring Bus for Intel. The AMD part measures 208 mm² with 13,100 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC process, while Intel’s die size and transistor count are not recorded, and its process is 10 nm at Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear. AMD’s Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Rembrandt+ chip, built at TSMC’s 6 nm node with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². Intel’s Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, fabricated at Intel’s 10 nm node, with no transistor count or die size recorded. AMD’s generation is listed as Console GPU (AMD), while Intel’s is Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake). The AMD part has 12 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from Intel’s recorded specifications, and its memory interface is dedicated LPDDR5, whereas Intel’s is system shared. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) for AMD and DirectX 12 (12_1) for Intel, with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 on both. Intel’s predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, while AMD has no recorded predecessor. The AMD part’s power connectors are none, and its slot width is not recorded, while Intel is noted as an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Release dates differ: AMD launched on 2024-12-31, and Intel on 2023-12-13, both as active production parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins in compute-heavy tasks. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, 4.608 and 9.216 TFLOPS respectively, along with 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, make it suitable for general-purpose shader work, texture filtering, and parallel compute workloads. The 11% lead in FP32 and texture rate suggests better performance in games or applications that rely on fill-rate-bound effects or heavy shader math. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in pixel-bound and ray-traced scenarios. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20% higher than Intel’s, indicates faster rasterization for resolution-limited tasks. The 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced lighting, shadows, and reflections, a feature the Intel part lacks entirely. Additionally, the dedicated 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures consistent performance without dependence on system memory configuration, which is a variable for the Intel part. For portable devices where power is capped at 28 W for both, the AMD part’s higher base clock of 800 MHz may offer better idle-to-load responsiveness, while the Intel part’s larger shader array could deliver more peak throughput when power allows. The choice hinges on workload priorities: Intel for raw compute and texture throughput, AMD for pixel fill, ray tracing, and memory predictability.