AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both components are zero. This means the two products have never been tested against each other in the same benchmark session within the database.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 does have a single recorded benchmark score. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, it scores 2893 points. This places the card at the 18th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning roughly four out of five recorded GPUs score higher. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no benchmark scores recorded at all, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is a placeholder value rather than a measured result, as no actual test data exists for the part.

The RTX 4010's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance level. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB scores 2907 points, which is 0.5% higher than the RTX 4010. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2910 points, a 0.6% advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2913 points, 0.7% higher. Even the NVIDIA Quadro P600, an older professional card, scores 2923 points, 1% above the RTX 4010. These deltas are extremely small, all within a single percentage point. The data indicates the RTX 4010 performs essentially on par with these four rivals in the Steel Nomad DX12 workload, with the RTX 4010 sitting at the lower end of that tight cluster.

Because the AMD part has no recorded scores, any numerical comparison between the two products is impossible. The only comparative statements that can be made from the database are architectural and specification-based, which appear in the following sections.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use different underlying designs. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip, built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture. It belongs to the Console GPU generation for AMD. The process node is 6 nm, fabricated by TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the GA107 chip, built on the Ampere architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 40 series. Its process node is 8 nm, fabricated by Samsung. The AMD part uses a smaller, denser manufacturing process.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The AMD chip contains 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD die is slightly larger in area but packs roughly 50% more transistors into it. The density advantage comes directly from the 6 nm node versus the 8 nm node.

Shader resources show both similarities and differences. Both GPUs have 768 shading units. The AMD part has 48 texture mapping units and 32 raster operation pipelines. The NVIDIA part has 24 texture mapping units and 16 raster operation pipelines. The AMD GPU has exactly double the TMUs and double the ROPs of the NVIDIA GPU. For ray tracing, the AMD part has 12 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 6 RT cores, again a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part includes 24 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Tensor cores are specialized hardware for AI and machine learning workloads, and the database shows no equivalent on the AMD side.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, a very wide operating range. The NVIDIA GPU has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, a much narrower range. The NVIDIA part starts higher but peaks much lower. The AMD part can reach a substantially higher maximum clock when boosted.

Memory subsystems are configured very differently. The AMD GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part has four times the memory capacity and a wider bus, but only about 6.7% more bandwidth. The memory clock rates also differ: AMD runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The faster memory clock on the NVIDIA part compensates for its narrower bus.

Compute throughput numbers show a clear AMD advantage. The AMD GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.294 TFLOPS of FP16 performance using a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA GPU delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The AMD part is roughly 53% ahead in FP32 and over three times ahead in FP16 throughput. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: AMD has 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA has 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. The AMD part is over three times faster in pixel fill and texture fill.

Power requirements differ in both directions. The AMD GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 50 W. The AMD part uses less power while delivering higher compute throughput. However, the NVIDIA part is a standalone card with a single-slot form factor, 163 mm long and 69 mm high, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD part has no listed dimensions and no power connectors. The AMD GPU outputs video through a single USB Type-C connector. The NVIDIA GPU has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA part connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD part has no listed bus interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. The AMD part has four times the capacity.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS of FP16. The AMD part is approximately 53% ahead in FP32 and significantly ahead in FP16.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support is identical across both products.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has 6 RT cores. The AMD part has double the RT core count.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W. The AMD part consumes less power.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the AMD part. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has one recorded score of 2893 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear distinction between these two products. For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, memory capacity, texture fill, pixel fill, and ray tracing hardware, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU holds a decisive specification advantage. It delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 against 2.706 TFLOPS, has 16 GB of memory against 4 GB, doubles the TMU and ROP counts, and doubles the RT core count. Its power draw of 28 W is lower than the NVIDIA part's 50 W. The AMD GPU also has a more advanced manufacturing process at 6 nm versus 8 nm.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 does have advantages in specific areas. It includes 24 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks. It has a higher base clock of 1417 MHz versus 800 MHz, and a faster memory clock at 12 Gbps effective versus 6.4 Gbps. Its bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s is close to the AMD part's 102.4 GB/s despite a much narrower 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA card has four display outputs versus one, and it is a physical card with known dimensions of 163 mm by 69 mm, while the AMD part has no listed dimensions or slot width.

The benchmark data only covers the NVIDIA side. The RTX 4010 scores 2893 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, sitting at the 18th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score, indicating it performs at a very specific, narrowly defined level. The AMD part has no measured scores, so its actual in-test performance is unknown from the database. The specification comparison suggests it should be substantially faster in most traditional graphics workloads, but no measured confirmation exists.

The two products also target different form factors. The AMD part is a low-power, 28 W integrated-style GPU with a single USB Type-C output. The NVIDIA part is a 50 W standalone card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The AMD part is better suited to compact, low-power systems where the single output is sufficient. The NVIDIA part fits into a standard expansion slot and supports multi-display setups. The suggested PSU of 250 W for the NVIDIA system indicates a larger overall platform requirement.

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is the stronger compute device on paper. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 is the only one with a verified benchmark score, and that score is modest at the 18th percentile. The choice depends on whether the user needs the AMD part's higher throughput and larger memory, or the NVIDIA part's tensor cores, display outputs, and measured benchmark result.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs. Fields that match or are absent on both sides are not listed.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 |

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

| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Rembrandt+ | GA107 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ampere |

| Generation | Console GPU (AMD) | GeForce 40 |

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 208 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 63.0M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 800 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2700 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory clock | 800 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | LPDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT cores | 12 | 6 |

| Tensor cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 4.147 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus interface | Not listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 1x USB Type-C | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 163 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Release date | 2024-12-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | Not listed | GeForce 50 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 18 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 2893 |