AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile at the exact same percentile rank in the database, both at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. This parity suggests that neither part is a dominant force in the overall landscape, but the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a discrete-class solution with a 28 W TDP, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile is an integrated processor graphics unit with a 15 W TDP. The data indicates a clear split: the AMD part is designed for sustained rendering workloads with a substantial memory pool, whereas the Intel part is a low-power companion for basic display output. For any workload that depends on raw shader throughput, pixel fill, or texture processing, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is the only logical choice. For ultra-portable, low-power systems where the CPU's integrated graphics suffice for light duties, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile fits that constrained role. The database shows no benchmark wins for either side, as the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, so the verdict rests entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the measurements.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses the Raptor Lake chip built on Generation 12.2 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 10 nm implies a density advantage for the AMD part, which is reflected in the transistor data. The AMD chip packs 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The Intel part has no transistor count, die size, or density recorded in the database. The AMD GPU features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Intel GPU features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The AMD part also includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Intel part has no ray tracing cores listed. The AMD GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both parts support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The memory architecture differs completely: the AMD GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel GPU relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, with memory clocked at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The Intel GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The power envelopes diverge sharply: 28 W for AMD versus 15 W for Intel. The bus interface for Intel is a Ring Bus, while the AMD part has no bus interface recorded. The AMD GPU lists a single USB Type-C display output, while the Intel output is portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in every computational throughput category recorded in the database. Its pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 6.75x advantage. Its texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s, a 5.06x advantage. Its FP32 throughput is 4.147 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS, a 5.06x advantage. Its FP16 throughput is 8.294 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS, a 5.06x advantage. The AMD part also has a massive memory bandwidth advantage with 102.4 GB/s dedicated bandwidth versus system dependent bandwidth for Intel. The 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory means the AMD GPU does not compete with the CPU for memory resources, which is a structural advantage for sustained workloads. The 12 ray tracing cores give the AMD part a feature that the Intel part simply does not have. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is nearly half of the AMD's 28 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light designs where thermal headroom is minimal. The Intel part's system shared memory means no dedicated memory chips are required, reducing board complexity and cost. The Intel part also has a wider release history, with a release date of January 2024 versus the AMD's January 2025. The Intel part has a listed successor (Arc Graphics-M), while the AMD part has no successor recorded. The Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz is significantly lower than the AMD's 800 MHz, which suggests the Intel part can idle at much lower power draw. For basic tasks such as video playback, office productivity, and lightweight 2D rendering, the Intel part's lower power draw is an advantage. For any 3D rendering, gaming, or compute workload, the AMD part dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 5.06x higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile's 819.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: No, the database records no ray tracing cores for the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile has a 15 W TDP, making the Intel part nearly half the power draw.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU boosts to 2700 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile boosts to 1600 MHz. The AMD part's base clock of 800 MHz is also higher than the Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two GPUs support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the database is empty, so there are no recorded benchmark wins for either GPU. The analysis must therefore rely on the computed throughput rates and specification comparisons. The pixel rate comparison is stark: the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU processes 86.40 GPixel/s, which is 6.75x the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile's 12.80 GPixel/s. This means the AMD part can fill frames with color data much faster, which directly impacts resolution and refresh rate capabilities. The texture rate comparison shows 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 25.60 GTexel/s for Intel, a 5.06x gap that affects how quickly textures can be mapped onto geometry. The FP32 throughput of 4.147 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS is the same 5.06x ratio, indicating that the shading unit count difference (768 versus 256) scales linearly with the clock speed advantage. The FP16 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS also maintains the 2:1 ratio relative to FP32 for both parts. The memory bandwidth is the most decisive differentiator: the AMD part has a fixed 102.4 GB/s, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it can vary based on the host CPU's memory configuration. In any scenario where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck, the AMD part has a structural advantage that the Intel part cannot overcome. The clock speed difference is also notable: the AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz versus 1600 MHz for Intel, a 1.69x advantage. The base clock difference is even larger: 800 MHz versus 300 MHz, a 2.67x advantage for AMD. The 12 ray tracing cores on the AMD part provide a hardware feature that the Intel part lacks entirely, which means any ray-traced workload is impossible on the Intel part without software emulation. The AMD part's 16 GB of dedicated memory versus system shared memory for Intel means the AMD part can hold larger textures and geometry buffers without evicting CPU data. The Intel part's 8 ROPs versus 32 ROPs for AMD limits its ability to output pixels to a display at high resolutions. The Intel part's 16 TMUs versus 48 TMUs for AMD limits texture filtering throughput. The overall picture is one of complete dominance by the AMD part in every measured throughput category, with the only advantages for the Intel part being lower power draw and simpler system integration.

Specification Differences

The database records several specification fields where the two GPUs differ. The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses a 6 nm node from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm node from Intel. The transistor count differs: AMD has 13,100 million transistors, while Intel has no recorded transistor count. The die size differs: AMD measures 208 mm², while Intel has no recorded die size. The transistor density differs: AMD achieves 63.0M per mm², while Intel has no recorded density. The base clock differs: AMD runs at 800 MHz, Intel at 300 MHz. The boost clock differs: AMD boosts to 2700 MHz, Intel to 1600 MHz. The memory configuration differs completely: AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The shading unit count differs: AMD has 768, Intel has 256. The TMU count differs: AMD has 48, Intel has 16. The ROP count differs: AMD has 32, Intel has 8. The ray tracing core count differs: AMD has 12, Intel has none. The pixel rate differs: AMD achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, Intel achieves 12.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate differs: AMD achieves 129.6 GTexel/s, Intel achieves 25.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput differs: AMD delivers 4.147 TFLOPS, Intel delivers 819.2 GFLOPS. The FP16 throughput differs: AMD delivers 8.294 TFLOPS, Intel delivers 1.638 TFLOPS. The TDP differs: AMD draws 28 W, Intel draws 15 W. The slot width differs: AMD has no recorded slot width, Intel is listed as an IGP. The power connectors differ: AMD lists none, Intel has no recorded power connectors. The bus interface differs: AMD has no recorded bus interface, Intel uses a Ring Bus. The display outputs differ: AMD lists one USB Type-C output, Intel lists portable device dependent output. The DirectX support differs: AMD supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), Intel supports 12 (12_1). The release dates differ: AMD was released on January 1, 2025, Intel on January 4, 2023. The successor field differs: AMD has no successor, Intel lists Arc Graphics-M as its successor. The generation field differs: AMD is listed as Console GPU (AMD), Intel is listed as HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake). The architecture differs: AMD uses RDNA 2.0, Intel uses Generation 12.2. The chip differs: AMD uses Rembrandt+, Intel uses Raptor Lake.