AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip with an RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². It has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores, with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz.

Q: How does the memory configuration of the two GPUs differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU features 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance is tied to the host system.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a TDP of 65 W. This represents a significant difference in power consumption between the two integrated solutions.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.294 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio). The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 1.536 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio). The AMD part is substantially ahead in raw compute metrics.

Q: What benchmark data exists for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a recorded score of 733 in the 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 test. Its average benchmark score is 733, and it sits at the 3rd percentile versus all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU matches the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU with a 0% delta. It is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (which scores 723) and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (which scores 751).

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two integrated graphics solutions. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU occupies the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile. This percentile gap is substantial and indicates a major performance chasm.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is designed for scenarios where graphics throughput matters. Its 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate position it as a capable integrated solution. The presence of 12 RT cores adds hardware ray tracing support, and the 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth provides a self-contained memory subsystem.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU, in contrast, appears oriented toward basic display output and light workloads. Its 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute is a fraction of the AMD part's output. The 3rd percentile ranking places it among the lowest-performing GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are legacy mobile parts, which suggests the performance class is entry-level at best.

For users who need to run graphically demanding applications or games, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is the clear choice based on every compute metric in the database. For users whose primary requirement is display output for everyday computing, the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU may suffice, but the data shows it delivers far less graphics capability while consuming more power at 65 W versus 28 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs. However, the available metrics allow for a thorough comparison of their theoretical and measured capabilities.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 5.4 times the 768.0 GFLOPS delivered by the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU. In FP16, the AMD part produces 8.294 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a ratio of approximately 5.4:1 as well.

Pixel throughput favors the AMD part decisively. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU achieves 12.00 GPixel/s. This represents a 7.2x advantage for the AMD solution. Texture throughput shows a similar pattern: 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel, a 5.4x difference.

The AMD GPU also has a substantial clock speed advantage. Its boost clock of 2700 MHz exceeds the Intel part's 2000 MHz boost clock. The base clocks differ even more dramatically: 800 MHz for AMD versus 300 MHz for Intel.

The recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU places it at the 3rd percentile. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark score in the database, but its 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs indicates it outperforms half of all recorded GPUs, a stark contrast to the Intel part's position in the bottom 3%.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses a 6 nm process, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the Intel part packs more transistors: 17,800 million versus 13,100 million, on a larger die of 243 mm² versus 208 mm². The transistor density reflects this: 73.3M per mm² for Intel versus 63.0M per mm² for AMD.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective transfer rate, while the Intel part lists no dedicated memory clock.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. The AMD GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel GPU has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The AMD part includes 12 RT cores, while the Intel part has no RT cores listed.

Power requirements differ by more than a factor of two. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W and uses no power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a TDP of 65 W and is classified as an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs also differ: the AMD part provides 1x USB Type-C, while the Intel part is motherboard dependent.

Release dates differ by approximately two months. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU was released on 2024-10-23, and the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU was released on 2024-12-31. The Intel part lists a predecessor of HD Graphics, while the AMD part has no predecessor listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Rembrandt+ chip, belonging to the Console GPU generation from AMD. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics generation for Arrow Lake.

The process node difference is notable: AMD uses a 6 nm process while Intel uses a 3 nm process, both at TSMC. Despite the smaller process node, the Intel part consumes more power at 65 W versus 28 W, which suggests the AMD architecture achieves better performance per watt in the recorded metrics.

Ray tracing support marks a clear differentiation. The AMD part includes 12 dedicated RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The Intel part lists no RT cores, indicating no hardware ray tracing capability. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is similar despite the hardware differences.

The cache hierarchy and internal design details differ as a consequence of their distinct architectures. The AMD RDNA 2.0 design has been used in console-class silicon, while the Intel Xe-LPG architecture targets integrated graphics within Arrow Lake-S processors. The Intel part's Ring Bus interface indicates tight integration with the CPU's internal fabric, while the AMD part's standalone memory controller supports its 16 GB LPDDR5 pool.

The transistor budgets tell an interesting story. Intel uses 36% more transistors (17,800 million versus 13,100 million) on a 17% larger die (243 mm² versus 208 mm²), yet delivers roughly one-fifth of the FP32 compute. This suggests the Intel architecture allocates more silicon to non-graphics functions, or the Xe-LPG design is less compute-dense for this particular configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in every compute and throughput category recorded in the database. Its FP32 performance of 4.147 TFLOPS, FP16 performance of 8.294 TFLOPS, pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s all exceed the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU by wide margins. The 12 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing that the Intel part cannot offer. The 16 GB of dedicated memory at 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance, independent of system configuration.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in areas related to process technology and system integration. Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the 6 nm node used by AMD. Its transistor count of 17,800 million exceeds the AMD part's 13,100 million. The Ring Bus interface suggests seamless integration with the host processor's internal architecture. The motherboard-dependent display outputs offer flexibility for system designers, though the AMD part's USB Type-C output is more standardized.

The benchmark data reinforces this split. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 3rd percentile, within 2.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 50th percentile ranking puts it in the middle of the database, a far stronger position.

For use cases involving gaming, 3D rendering, video processing, or any workload that stresses the graphics pipeline, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is the superior choice based on the measured specifications. For basic desktop use, video playback, and light productivity tasks, the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU could handle the load, but its lower compute throughput and higher power draw make it a less compelling option in the recorded data. The power efficiency picture is clear: the AMD part delivers more performance at less than half the TDP (28 W versus 65 W).