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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU or the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem. Both entries return an average benchmark score of 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. Without measured frame rates, compute scores, or synthetic test results, a numerical head-to-head comparison is not possible from the data on hand.

What the data does show is the theoretical compute ceiling of each part. The Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 12.6 times the 4.147 TFLOPS of the AMD part. In FP16, the gap narrows slightly in relative terms but remains enormous: Intel posts 52.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while AMD reaches 8.294 TFLOPS with a 2:1 shader rate. The Intel subsystem also produces a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD, a difference of roughly 12.6 times. Pixel rate goes the other direction in an unusual way: AMD records 86.40 GPixel/s, while Intel lists 0 MPixel/s, indicating the data center part has no conventional ROP output stage.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. Intel's HBM2e stack moves 3.21 TB/s across an 8192-bit bus, compared to 102.4 GB/s over a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus for AMD. That is a 31.3 times bandwidth advantage for Intel. The memory capacity difference is also stark: 128 GB versus 16 GB.

The absence of benchmark entries means the database cannot confirm how these theoretical figures translate into real workloads. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides, so no measured victory can be awarded to either product.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies entirely. AMD uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a chip called Rembrandt+, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. The die measures 208 mm² and contains 13,100 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². Intel uses Generation 12.5 architecture on the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The die is 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, for a density of 78.1 million per mm². Intel's transistor density is 24% higher despite the older process node label, which reflects the massive scale of the design.

Shader resources differ by a factor of 21.3. AMD packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Intel fields 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, but lists 0 ROPs, which aligns with its lack of a display output and its pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Ray tracing hardware is present on both: AMD has 12 RT cores, Intel has 128.

Clock behavior is inverted. AMD runs a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz, a 3.4 times boost range. Intel runs 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost, a much narrower 1.8 times range. The AMD part relies on aggressive boosting to reach its performance, while Intel's advantage comes from sheer width and memory bandwidth rather than clock speed.

Memory technology could not be more different. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 at 6.4 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus. Intel uses 128 GB of HBM2e at 3.1 Gbps effective on an 8192-bit bus. The bus width difference of 64 times explains why Intel achieves 31.3 times the bandwidth despite running its memory at roughly half the effective speed.

Power and physical design also diverge completely. AMD is rated at 28 W TDP with no power connectors and no slot width listed, implying a compact, integrated form factor. Intel is rated at 2400 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 2800 W. The Intel card is 267 mm long (10.5 inches). AMD lists a single USB Type-C display output; Intel lists no display outputs at all.

API support differs as well. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry recorded. The AMD part's DirectX 12 Ultimate designation indicates feature level 12_2, while Intel sits at the older 12_1 feature level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem records 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, which is 12.6 times the 4.147 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU.

Q: Why does the Intel part show 0 MPixel/s pixel rate?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lists 0 ROPs and no display outputs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, meaning it is not designed for traditional rasterized frame output.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: Intel delivers 3.21 TB/s across an 8192-bit HBM2e bus. AMD delivers 102.4 GB/s across a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus. Intel's bandwidth is 31.3 times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. AMD has 12 RT cores, while Intel has 128 RT cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: AMD is rated at 28 W TDP with no power connectors. Intel is rated at 2400 W TDP, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 2800 W.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: AMD boosts to 2700 MHz from an 800 MHz base. Intel boosts to 1600 MHz from a 900 MHz base. AMD's boost clock is 68.75% higher.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with essentially zero overlap in purpose. AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a 28 W part with 16 GB of LPDDR5, a 128-bit bus, 4.147 TFLOPS FP32, and a 50th percentile standing against all GPUs. Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a 2400 W part with 128 GB of HBM2e, an 8192-bit bus, 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, and the same 50th percentile standing. The percentile field does not differentiate them, and no benchmark scores exist to separate them empirically.

For a user constrained by the database alone, the Intel part wins on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, and ray tracing core count. The AMD part wins on boost clock, pixel rate, display output support, DirectX 12 Ultimate feature level, Vulkan support, and power efficiency by a massive margin. The Intel part has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor. The AMD part has one USB Type-C output, so it can.

The choice depends entirely on the workload. A system that needs maximum compute throughput and enormous memory pools points to Intel. A system that needs a low-power GPU with display capability points to AMD.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Generation 12.5 |

| Process node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 100,000 million |

| Die size | 208 mm² | 1280 mm² |

| Transistor density | 63.0M / mm² | 78.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2700 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory type | LPDDR5 | HBM2e |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 8192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 3.21 TB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 16384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 1024 |

| ROPs | 32 | 0 |

| RT cores | 12 | 128 |

| Pixel rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 0 MPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 1,638.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 52.43 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 2400 W |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 2800 W |

| Bus interface | None listed | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None listed |

| Length | None listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Slot width | None listed | Dual-slot |

| Release date | 2024-12-31 | 2023-01-09 |

| Successor | None listed | H3C Graphics |

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios that require display output, low power draw, and high clock speeds. Its 2700 MHz boost clock is 68.75% above Intel's 1600 MHz. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 32 ROPs mean it can actually rasterize frames for a display, something the Intel part cannot do. The 28 W TDP means it can run without any power connector, and its single USB Type-C output allows direct monitor connection. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support and Vulkan 1.4 give it modern graphics API coverage for client workloads. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory is small by data center standards but adequate for a console-class GPU.

Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins in raw throughput and capacity. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 is 12.6 times AMD's figure. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1 ratio means it does not lose half its rate for half-precision work, unlike AMD's 2:1 ratio that halves FP16 throughput relative to FP32. The 128 GB HBM2e pool is 8 times larger than AMD's 16 GB, and the 3.21 TB/s bandwidth is 31.3 times higher. The 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate is 12.6 times AMD's 129.6 GTexel/s. With 128 RT cores versus 12, ray tracing workloads have 10.7 times more hardware available. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a high-bandwidth host connection, and the 267 mm dual-slot card is a standard server form factor. Its 2400 W TDP and 2800 W suggested PSU reflect a machine-room installation, not a desktop.

Neither product wins a measured benchmark in the database. The recorded data only supports architectural and specification-level conclusions. The AMD part is the only one of the two that can output video, and the Intel part is the only one of the two that approaches data center compute scale. Users should match the hardware to the physical and electrical constraints of their system.