AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows two fundamentally different GPU designs with almost no overlap in their intended operating envelopes. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a 28 W integrated-class part built on a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 is a 115 W discrete card on a 5 nm node. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but examining their benchmark profiles reveals which tasks each part dominates.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in power efficiency by a wide margin. Its thermal design power is 28 W, which is roughly one-quarter of the NVIDIA card's 115 W envelope. For systems constrained by battery life, compact chassis, or passive cooling requirements, the AMD part is the only viable option between the two. The Ryzen Z2 Go also uses no external power connectors, whereas the RTX 4060 AD106 requires a single 12-pin connector and a suggested power supply of 300 W. This makes the AMD solution suitable for handheld consoles or ultra-portable devices where the NVIDIA card cannot physically fit or be powered.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 wins in raw compute throughput across every measured metric. Its FP32 output is 15.11 TFLOPS, compared to 4.147 TFLOPS for the AMD part. That is a 3.6x advantage in single-precision floating point work. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided in NVIDIA's favor: the RTX 4060 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the AMD chip reaches 8.294 TFLOPS only with a 2:1 ratio. For any workload that relies on FP16, such as AI inference or certain graphics effects, the NVIDIA card provides both higher peak throughput and better precision fidelity.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The RTX 4060 AD106 produces 236.2 GTexel/s versus the Ryzen Z2 Go's 129.6 GTexel/s, a 1.8x advantage. Pixel fill rates are 118.1 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, a 1.4x lead for NVIDIA. These metrics directly influence resolution scaling and texture-heavy scenes, where the NVIDIA card holds a clear edge.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive win for NVIDIA. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 272.0 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, but reaches only 102.4 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 2.7x the memory bandwidth, which matters for high-resolution textures, ray tracing data fetches, and compute workloads that stream large datasets.

However, the AMD part wins on memory capacity. Its 16 GB is double the NVIDIA card's 8 GB. For workloads that require large working sets, such as certain machine learning models or texture-heavy applications that exceed 8 GB, the AMD GPU can hold more data locally. The RTX 4060 AD106 would need to spill to system memory, which reduces performance.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split: the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is for constrained, low-power systems where energy draw and physical footprint dominate all other considerations. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 is for performance-oriented builds where maximum throughput and memory bandwidth justify a higher power budget and external power requirements.

For a handheld or battery-powered device, the AMD part is the only rational choice. Its 28 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and single USB Type-C display output align perfectly with compact, integrated designs. The NVIDIA card's 115 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 12-pin connector require a desktop chassis with adequate airflow and a 300 W power supply.

For a desktop gaming or workstation system, the NVIDIA card wins on every compute metric that matters. Its FP32 performance is 3.6x higher, memory bandwidth is 2.7x higher, and it includes dedicated RT cores and tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely. The RTX 4060 AD106 also has 3072 shading units versus 768, 96 texture mapping units versus 48, and 48 ROPs versus 32. These are not marginal differences; they represent a completely different performance class.

The only scenario where the AMD part's 16 GB capacity becomes decisive is when a workload absolutely requires more than 8 GB of on-chip memory and the user is willing to accept the massive compute penalty. The benchmark data does not show any application where the AMD part wins on speed; it wins only on power draw and memory capacity. The verdict is straightforward: choose AMD for portable, low-power systems; choose NVIDIA for performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data in the database contains no recorded entries, so the analysis relies on the specification-derived performance indicators. The most significant wins each way are as follows.

The NVIDIA RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.6x the Ryzen Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS. In FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA card provides 15.11 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision data at the same rate as single-precision. The AMD part reaches 8.294 TFLOPS but only with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is half of its FP32 rate. For AI inference, where FP16 is common, the NVIDIA card's raw throughput and ratio advantage translate to substantially faster execution.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 272.0 GB/s from its GDDR6 memory at 2125 MHz with a 17 Gbps effective data rate. The Ryzen Z2 Go manages 102.4 GB/s from LPDDR5 at 800 MHz with a 6.4 Gbps effective rate. That is a 2.7x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which directly impacts texture streaming, geometry processing, and any compute kernel that reads or writes large buffers.

The pixel and texture throughput gap is narrower but still decisive. NVIDIA produces 118.1 GPixel/s and 236.2 GTexel/s, while AMD produces 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card leads by 1.4x in pixel fill and 1.8x in texture fill. For 1440p or 4K rendering, these differences compound with the memory bandwidth advantage, producing a markedly smoother experience on the NVIDIA card.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go's most significant win is its power envelope. At 28 W, it draws less than a quarter of the NVIDIA card's 115 W. The AMD part also uses no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card requires a 12-pin connector. For a system with a limited power budget, such as a handheld with a small battery, the AMD part's efficiency is not just an advantage; it is the enabling factor.

The AMD part also wins on memory capacity with 16 GB versus 8 GB. While its bandwidth is far lower, the capacity advantage allows it to hold larger datasets entirely on-chip. For workloads that fit within 16 GB but exceed 8 GB, the AMD GPU avoids the performance penalty of system memory spillover, even if its peak compute is far lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.6x higher than the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 272.0 GB/s using GDDR6 at 17 Gbps effective, while the Ryzen Z2 Go reaches 102.4 GB/s using LPDDR5 at 6.4 Gbps effective. NVIDIA has 2.7x the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 includes 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores. The Ryzen Z2 Go has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go has a 28 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 4060 AD106 has a 115 W TDP, uses a single 12-pin connector, and requires a 300 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA RTX 4060 AD106 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What are the display output options?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go offers a single USB Type-C output. The NVIDIA RTX 4060 AD106 offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures from different generations. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go uses RDNA 2.0, the architecture found in AMD's console-class GPUs, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 uses Ada Lovelace, the architecture for the GeForce 40-series, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The process node difference is small but meaningful: 6 nm versus 5 nm.

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 packs 22,900 million transistors onto a smaller 188 mm² die, achieving 121.8 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA's density is nearly double, which explains its much higher compute throughput within a similar physical footprint.

Core counts reinforce the architectural gap. The Ryzen Z2 Go has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 4x the shading units, 2x the TMUs, 1.5x the ROPs, and 2x the RT cores. The tensor cores are present only on the NVIDIA side, giving it dedicated hardware for AI and deep learning workloads.

The FP16 handling differs fundamentally. The AMD part achieves 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. The NVIDIA part achieves 15.11 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, processing FP16 at the same rate as FP32. This architectural choice gives NVIDIA both higher peak FP16 and no precision trade-off.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support is identical, so software compatibility does not differentiate them. The production status differs: the AMD part is listed as active, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is GeForce 30 and its successor is GeForce 50, while the AMD part has no listed predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

The most consequential differences appear in power, memory, and compute resources.

Power draw: the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go uses 28 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 4060 AD106 uses 115 W. The AMD part requires no power connectors, the NVIDIA card uses a single 12-pin connector. The NVIDIA card has a suggested PSU rating of 300 W and is dual-slot width, while the AMD part has no slot width listed and no PSU requirement.

Memory: the AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth. The clock speeds differ: AMD runs memory at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, NVIDIA runs memory at 2125 MHz with 17 Gbps effective.

Core clocks: the AMD base clock is 800 MHz with a boost of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 1830 MHz with a boost of 2460 MHz. Despite the AMD part's higher boost clock, its far fewer shading units result in much lower aggregate throughput.

Compute resources: AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. This yields pixel rates of 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD and 118.1 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rates of 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD and 236.2 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

FP32 and FP16: AMD delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). NVIDIA delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.11 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Process and die: AMD uses a 6 nm process with a 208 mm² die and 13,100 million transistors. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process with a 188 mm² die and 22,900 million transistors. Transistor density is 63.0M/mm² for AMD and 121.8M/mm² for NVIDIA.

Display outputs: AMD provides a single USB Type-C. NVIDIA provides one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a.

Bus interface: AMD has no listed bus interface, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Release timing: the AMD part was released on 2024-12-31, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2024-03-31. The NVIDIA card is end-of-life, and the AMD part is active.