AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 serve entirely different purposes, and the recorded data confirms this split. The Ryzen Z2 Go is a 28 W mobile-class part with RDNA 2.0 architecture, 768 shading units, and 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a 300 W dual-slot accelerator built on Ponte Vecchio, with 7168 shading units, 56 ray tracing cores, and 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit interface. These are not competing products; they are opposite ends of the GPU spectrum.

The data shows the Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus 4.147 TFLOPS for the AMD part, a multiple of roughly 5.36x. The Intel part also offers 48 GB of memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, while the AMD part provides 16 GB at 102.4 GB/s. For compute-heavy data center workloads, the Intel part is the clear choice. For low-power embedded or handheld use, the AMD part is the only viable option given its 28 W TDP and lack of external power connectors.

The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part only supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no Vulkan entry in the database. The AMD part has display outputs (1x USB Type-C), while the Intel part has no outputs at all. The Ryzen Z2 Go is built for rendering frames to a screen; the Intel Max 1100 is built for computation in a server rack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS. The Intel part is approximately 5.36 times faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel part uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 12 times the memory bus width and roughly 12 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go has a 28 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP, uses a single 12-pin power connector, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 700 W.

Q: Does either GPU have display outputs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go has one USB Type-C display output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs, which aligns with its data center positioning.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD part uses TSMC's 6 nm process with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The Intel part uses Intel's 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go uses RDNA 2.0, built on the "Rembrandt+" chip at TSMC's 6 nm node. It packs 13,100 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses Generation 12.5 architecture on the Ponte Vecchio chip, fabricated at Intel's 10 nm process. It contains 100,000 million transistors across a 1280 mm² die, for a density of 78.1M per mm². The Intel die is over six times larger in area and holds over 7.6 times more transistors.

The compute configuration differs dramatically. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 7168 shading units and 448 TMUs, but the database records zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. This suggests the Intel architecture does not rasterize in the traditional sense; it is a compute-first design. The Intel part does include 56 ray tracing cores, which is more than four times the AMD count. The Intel texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s dwarfs the AMD figure of 129.6 GTexel/s, while the AMD pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s has no Intel equivalent.

The memory architectures reflect their different missions. The AMD part uses LPDDR5, a low-power memory type suited to mobile systems, on a 128-bit bus. The Intel part uses HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, a high-bandwidth stacked memory designed for data center throughput. The AMD memory clock is 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective. Despite the lower clock, the Intel part's massive bus width produces 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth, about 12 times the AMD bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The physical and electrical profiles also diverge. The AMD part is a 28 W chip with no power connectors, no slot width specified, and no bus interface listed. The Intel part is a 300 W dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, requiring a 12-pin power connector and a 700 W suggested PSU, and it uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The AMD part has a single USB Type-C display output; the Intel part has none.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go uses a 6 nm TSMC process; the Intel Max 1100 uses a 10 nm Intel process. Transistor counts are 13,100 million versus 100,000 million. Die sizes are 208 mm² versus 1280 mm². Transistor densities are 63.0M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The AMD part runs at 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost. The Intel part runs at 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost. The AMD part has a higher boost clock by 1150 MHz, but the Intel part compensates with far more execution units.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD memory runs at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective); the Intel memory runs at 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective).

The rendering pipelines are dissimilar. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, zero ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The AMD pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s; the Intel pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s. The AMD texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s; the Intel texture rate is 694.4 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput is 4.147 TFLOPS for AMD and 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 throughput is 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for AMD and 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for Intel. The Intel part does not gain a FP16 advantage because its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate, while the AMD part doubles its throughput in FP16.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP, no power connectors, and no specified slot width. The Intel part has a 300 W TDP, one 12-pin power connector, a 700 W suggested PSU, a dual-slot form factor, and a 267 mm length. The AMD part uses a USB Type-C display output; the Intel part has no outputs. The AMD bus interface is not listed; the Intel interface is PCIe 5.0 x16.

API support differs. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs, and both parts show an average benchmark score of 0 with no nearest rivals recorded. The analysis therefore relies on the specification-level measurements available in the database.

The largest win for the Intel part is raw compute throughput. With 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 against 4.147 TFLOPS for the AMD part, the Intel GPU holds a 5.36x advantage in single-precision compute. This is the defining metric for data center workloads such as scientific simulation, AI inference, and rendering farms. The FP16 comparison is similarly lopsided: Intel delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while AMD delivers 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. Intel leads by a factor of 2.68x in FP16, a smaller margin than FP32 but still a decisive lead.

Memory bandwidth is another major Intel victory. The Intel part provides 1.23 TB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the AMD part, a 12.0x advantage. This bandwidth gap matters for workloads that stream large datasets, such as HPC solvers or large language model inference. The Intel memory capacity of 48 GB also exceeds the AMD 16 GB by 3x, allowing larger working sets to remain resident on the GPU.

Texture throughput favors Intel heavily. The Intel texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s is 5.36x the AMD rate of 129.6 GTexel/s, matching the FP32 ratio since both scale with shader count. The Intel shading unit count of 7168 is 9.33x the AMD count of 768, and the Intel TMU count of 448 is 9.33x the AMD count of 48.

The AMD part wins in clock speed. The AMD boost clock of 2700 MHz exceeds the Intel boost clock of 1550 MHz by 74.2%. The AMD base clock of 800 MHz is lower than the Intel base of 1000 MHz, but the boost behavior shows the AMD design favors higher instantaneous clocks for latency-sensitive tasks. The AMD pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s has no recorded Intel equivalent, as the Intel part reports 0 MPixel/s. This indicates the AMD part retains a full rasterization pipeline while the Intel part does not.

Power efficiency favors AMD decisively. The AMD part delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 within a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS within a 300 W TDP. Per watt, the AMD part produces roughly 0.148 TFLOPS/W, while the Intel part produces roughly 0.074 TFLOPS/W. The AMD part is about twice as efficient per watt in FP32, which matters for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in every compute-heavy category. It dominates FP32 throughput at 22.22 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput at 22.22 TFLOPS, memory bandwidth at 1.23 TB/s, memory capacity at 48 GB, shading units at 7168, TMUs at 448, ray tracing cores at 56, and texture rate at 694.4 GTexel/s. The data indicates this GPU is built for server-side computation where power draw of 300 W and a 700 W suggested PSU are acceptable. Its lack of display outputs and zero ROPs confirms it is not intended for direct rendering to a screen. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface supports high-speed host communication, and the 267 mm dual-slot design fits standard server chassis. The 48 GB HBM2e pool with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth suits workloads that require large memory footprints, such as data center inference or scientific computing.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in efficiency and display-centric features. Its 28 W TDP is less than one-tenth the Intel TDP, and it requires no external power connectors. The boost clock of 2700 MHz is 74.2% higher than the Intel boost clock, which benefits workloads sensitive to single-thread latency. The AMD part has a full rasterization pipeline with 32 ROPs and a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, plus a USB Type-C display output. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, making it the only one of the two with Vulkan support recorded. The 16 GB LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is modest but adequate for embedded gaming or mobile graphics tasks. The AMD transistor density of 63.0M per mm² on a 6 nm process shows a modern, compact design optimized for low power.

The use-case split is clear from the recorded data. The Intel part serves data center roles: high-throughput compute, large memory workloads, and headless operation. The AMD part serves client roles: rendering, display output, API compatibility, and power-constrained operation. Neither part can substitute for the other. The Intel part cannot drive a display or fit in a low-power slot, and the AMD part cannot approach the compute or memory bandwidth required for data center scale workloads. The database records both parts at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, which places them at the midpoint of the overall performance distribution despite their divergent designs.