AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, compared to the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti ranks at the 84th percentile.

Q: What are the TDP and power connector requirements?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP with no power connectors needed, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has a 285 W TDP requiring a 16-pin connector and a suggested 600 W power supply.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is listed as Active production, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is marked as End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti represent two fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA part uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, also built at TSMC but on a 5 nm process. This process difference contributes to substantial transistor density variations: the NVIDIA chip packs 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter, while the AMD chip achieves 63.0 million per square millimeter.

The compute hierarchies diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU contains 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti contains 7,680 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also differs, with 12 RT cores on the AMD side versus 60 RT cores on the NVIDIA side. The NVIDIA GPU additionally includes 240 tensor cores, a feature absent from the AMD specification entirely.

Memory architecture reflects their different target segments. The AMD GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU uses 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit interface, delivering 504.2 GB/s. This 4x bandwidth advantage on the NVIDIA side supports its much higher compute throughput. The AMD GPU's FP32 performance is 4.147 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA GPU reaches 40.09 TFLOPS, nearly ten times higher. FP16 performance shows a similar gap: 8.294 TFLOPS on AMD versus 40.09 TFLOPS on NVIDIA, though the NVIDIA implementation runs at 1:1 ratio while AMD uses 2:1.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU starts at a 2310 MHz base and boosts to 2610 MHz. Despite lower base clocks, the AMD design achieves higher boost relative to base, reflecting its mobile-oriented power envelope. The AMD memory clock runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA memory runs at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 28 W TDP requires no power connectors and fits into compact designs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, by contrast, draws 285 W and needs a 16-pin connector plus a 600 W power supply. The AMD GPU also offers more memory capacity at 16 GB versus 12 GB, which could benefit workloads with large datasets that fit within its lower bandwidth envelope.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti wins decisively in raw performance. Its FP32 throughput of 40.09 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS, texture rate of 626.4 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 208.8 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s demonstrate orders-of-magnitude advantages. The NVIDIA GPU also has 240 tensor cores for AI-accelerated workloads, a capability the AMD GPU lacks entirely. The 60 RT cores versus 12 provide substantially more ray tracing throughput.

The NVIDIA GPU wins in memory bandwidth with 504.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage directly supports its higher fill rates and compute density. The AMD GPU's advantage lies in its lower power draw, allowing deployment in passively cooled or battery-powered systems where the NVIDIA part would be impractical.

Display output differences also matter. The AMD GPU provides a single USB Type-C output, while the NVIDIA GPU offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA GPU's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides a wider bus connection compared to the AMD GPU, which has no listed bus interface.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. Process node: 6 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 13,100 million versus 35,800 million. Die size: 208 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density: 63.0M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

Memory specifications diverge completely. AMD uses 16 GB LPDDR5 with 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 12 GB GDDR6X with 192-bit bus and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ, with AMD at 800 MHz and 6.4 Gbps effective versus NVIDIA at 1313 MHz and 21 Gbps effective.

Compute unit counts show a massive gap. AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. NVIDIA has 7,680 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 60 RT cores. NVIDIA additionally has 240 tensor cores, while AMD has none listed. Pixel rate: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 208.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 626.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.147 TFLOPS versus 40.09 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 40.09 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications differ sharply. TDP: 28 W versus 285 W. Power connectors: none versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: none listed versus 600 W. Slot width: not listed versus dual-slot. Dimensions: not listed for AMD versus 285 mm length, 112 mm height, 42 mm width for NVIDIA. Bus interface: not listed versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

Production status and release dates also differ. AMD is Active with a release date of 2024-12-31, while NVIDIA is End-of-life with a release date of 2023-01-02. The NVIDIA GPU has a predecessor (GeForce 30) and successor (GeForce 50), while AMD lists neither. The NVIDIA GPU has a launch MSRP of 799 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. However, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has extensive benchmark data that positions it clearly relative to its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero and no nearest rivals listed.

The NVIDIA GPU's average benchmark score is 44,795 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile, scores 45,152, just 0.8% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 45,384, which is 1.3% above the RTX 4070 Ti. The NVIDIA RTX A6000 scores 44,075, putting it 1.6% below. The Intel Arc A730M scores 45,592, which is 1.7% higher than the RTX 4070 Ti.

Individual benchmark results for the RTX 4070 Ti show its performance distribution. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 5,024. Geekbench OpenCL yields 176,953, while Geekbench Vulkan produces 213,808. PassMark tests show varied results: DirectX 9 scores 352, DirectX 10 scores 187, DirectX 11 scores 288, and DirectX 12 scores 116. PassMark G2D scores 1,200, while G3D scores 31,624. PassMark GPU Compute scores 18,396.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU's 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti's 84th percentile puts it well above average. The absence of benchmark scores for the AMD GPU means the database cannot provide direct performance comparisons. The NVIDIA GPU's data shows consistent performance across compute and graphics workloads, with its Vulkan score exceeding its OpenCL score by roughly 21%.

The power efficiency profile of the AMD GPU, at 28 W, suggests it targets a very different use case than the 285 W NVIDIA part. The database records no overlap in their measured performance domains. The AMD GPU's FP32 output of 4.147 TFLOPS places it in a low-power segment, while the NVIDIA GPU's 40.09 TFLOPS positions it as a high-performance desktop part. Without direct head-to-head measurements, the specification gap of roughly 9.7x in FP32 throughput and 4.9x in memory bandwidth defines the expected performance relationship between these two very different products.