AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q. Both entries show zero benchmark scores, zero wins on either side, and no nearest rival comparisons. The data is therefore silent on direct performance contests.

The absence of measured results is itself informative. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU carries a FP32 compute rating of 4.147 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q is rated at 9.032 TFLOPS. That is a 2.18x gap in raw single-precision floating-point throughput, which is the largest arithmetic difference between the two. Texture rate also favors the NVIDIA part: 141.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, a margin of roughly 8.9%. Pixel rate goes the other way, with the AMD part at 86.40 GPixel/s against 70.56 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part, an 18.3% advantage for AMD.

Memory bandwidth strongly favors the NVIDIA part. The RTX 4060 Max-Q reaches 256.0 GB/s over a 128 bit bus using GDDR6, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU manages 102.4 GB/s over the same 128 bit width using LPDDR5. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage. The AMD part compensates with 16 GB of memory versus 8 GB, so capacity is doubled on the AMD side.

Neither part shows any recorded percentile ranking beyond the neutral 50th percentile placeholder, and neither has an average benchmark score. The database does not permit any statement about which part wins in actual workloads. What the data does permit is a structural analysis: the NVIDIA part has more shading units, more texture mapping units, more render output units, more ray tracing cores, and tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely. The AMD part has a higher boost clock, a smaller process node, and a lower TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design schools. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a chip called Rembrandt+, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q uses Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD107 chip, built on a 5 nm process also at TSMC. The node difference is one nanometer, which contributes to the transistor density gap: 63.0M transistors per square millimeter for the AMD part versus 118.9M for the NVIDIA part.

The AMD chip carries 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip carries 18,900 million transistors on a smaller 159 mm² die. That means the NVIDIA part fits 44% more transistors into 24% less silicon area. The density numbers make the design philosophy clear: NVIDIA packs more logic into a smaller footprint, while AMD spreads fewer transistors over a larger area.

Shader configuration differs sharply. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 24 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also has 96 tensor cores; the AMD part has no tensor core field at all. FP16 compute tells the same story in different terms: the AMD part delivers 8.294 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part delivers 9.032 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA implementation does not need a ratio because its FP16 throughput matches FP32, whereas the AMD part halves its FP16 rate relative to FP32.

Clock behavior is inverted. The AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz from an 800 MHz base, a 3.4x multiplier. The NVIDIA part boosts to 1470 MHz from a 1140 MHz base, a 1.29x multiplier. The AMD part therefore relies on aggressive boost scaling, while the NVIDIA part operates closer to its base frequency. Memory clocks also differ: 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for AMD versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

The TDP spread is 28 W for the AMD part versus 35 W for the NVIDIA part. The AMD part is 7 W lower, which is 20% less than the NVIDIA figure. Power connectors are absent on both, and the NVIDIA part is classified as an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The AMD part lists no bus interface. Display output differs: the AMD part has 1x USB Type-C, while the NVIDIA part is marked as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark scores, the wins must be inferred from the specification sheet. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins on memory capacity with 16 GB versus 8 GB. It wins on pixel fill rate with 86.40 GPixel/s versus 70.56 GPixel/s. It wins on power efficiency per the TDP figures, using 28 W versus 35 W. It also carries a higher boost clock at 2700 MHz versus 1470 MHz.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q wins on raw compute throughput with 9.032 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.147 TFLOPS. It wins on texture fill rate with 141.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s. It wins on memory bandwidth with 256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. It wins on transistor count, density, and ray tracing core count. It is the only one of the two with tensor cores.

The use-case split follows these numbers. Applications that need large working sets, such as complex scenes with high-resolution textures, favor the AMD part because 16 GB of memory can hold substantially more data than 8 GB. Applications that are bandwidth-bound favor the NVIDIA part because 256.0 GB/s is more than double the AMD figure. Pixel-bound workloads, which depend on ROP throughput, favor the AMD part. Compute-heavy workloads favor the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

Ray tracing and machine learning workloads have no contest in the data. The NVIDIA part has 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores; the AMD part has 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. Any workload that uses tensor operations is exclusive to the NVIDIA part. Any workload that scales with ray tracing core count should favor the NVIDIA part, though the AMD part does have some ray tracing capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q is rated at 9.032 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.18x the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 4.147 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 2.5x the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 102.4 GB/s, despite both using a 128 bit bus.

Q: Does either GPU have tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q has tensor cores, with 96 of them. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no tensor cores.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is rated at 28 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q is rated at 35 W. The AMD part uses 7 W less.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q has 24 ray tracing cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 ray tracing cores.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not include any benchmark results, so a performance verdict cannot be derived from measurements. What the specification data shows is a clear division of roles. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built for capacity and efficiency: 16 GB of memory, 28 W TDP, a 6 nm process, and a 2700 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q is built for throughput and features: 9.032 TFLOPS FP32, 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, 96 tensor cores, and 24 ray tracing cores on a 5 nm process.

For workloads that fit within an 8 GB memory budget, the NVIDIA part has advantages in compute, bandwidth, ray tracing, and tensor performance that the AMD part cannot match. For workloads that need more than 8 GB of memory, the AMD part is the only option between the two. The pixel rate advantage of the AMD part, 86.40 GPixel/s versus 70.56 GPixel/s, also matters for certain rendering paths.

The transistor data suggests the NVIDIA part is the more complex design. It packs 18,900 million transistors into 159 mm², compared to 13,100 million into 208 mm² for AMD. That density difference, combined with the 96 tensor cores and doubled shading units, indicates a part designed for broader compute coverage. The AMD part's larger die with fewer transistors points toward a design optimized for lower power and simpler manufacturing demands.

The choice between the two depends entirely on workload requirements. The data supports the NVIDIA part for compute-heavy, bandwidth-sensitive, and tensor-accelerated tasks. The data supports the AMD part for memory-hungry tasks and lower power envelopes. Neither part has a recorded benchmark to settle the question empirically.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Chip | Rembrandt+ | AD107 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 1140 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 1470 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 48 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 70.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 141.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 9.032 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 9.032 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 35 W |

| Bus Interface | Not listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z | 2023-01-02T17:00:00.000Z |

| Predecessor | None listed | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | None listed | GeForce 50 Mobile |

The two parts share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both list no power connectors, no suggested PSU, no length, height, or width dimensions, and no launch MSRP. Both are marked as Active in production status. The NVIDIA part is one generation newer in the mobile lineup, with a predecessor and successor listed, while the AMD part has neither.