AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER occupy entirely different segments of the performance spectrum, and the recorded data makes the split unambiguous. The RTX 5070 SUPER holds every measurable performance advantage, while the Ryzen Z2 Go wins exclusively in power efficiency and integration characteristics.

The RTX 5070 SUPER delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690, placing it in the 18th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M at 2664, the GeForce GT 1030 at 2662, and the Intel Arc Pro B50 at 2660, all trail by roughly 1 percent. The GeForce GT 440 sits closest at 2645, a 1.7 percent gap. These margins are narrow, but they confirm the RTX 5070 SUPER leads its immediate competitive cluster.

The Ryzen Z2 Go shows no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score sits at zero. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it mid-pack, but without measured performance data, direct numerical comparison against the RTX 5070 SUPER is impossible. The use-case distinction therefore hinges on what the specifications reveal about intended workloads.

The Ryzen Z2 Go uses a 28 W power envelope with no power connectors, making it suitable for compact, low-power systems where thermal limits dominate. The RTX 5070 SUPER draws 275 W, requires a 16-pin connector, and occupies a dual-slot form factor at 245 mm length. The architectural split is clear: the Ryzen Z2 Go targets embedded, handheld, or console-style applications, while the RTX 5070 SUPER targets desktop gaming and workstation rendering.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share no architectural lineage. The Ryzen Z2 Go uses RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process, built from the Rembrandt+ chip with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process, built from the GB205 chip with 31,100 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. Transistor density reflects the process gap: 63.0M per mm² for the AMD part versus 118.3M per mm² for the NVIDIA part.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Ryzen Z2 Go packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 raster output pipelines, and 12 ray tracing cores. The RTX 5070 SUPER scales to 6400 shading units, 200 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 50 RT cores, and adds 200 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part supports tensor acceleration, which the AMD chip lacks entirely.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Ryzen Z2 Go uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses 18 GB of GDDR7 on a 192 bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s, a 6.6x bandwidth advantage. Memory clocks reflect this: 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the AMD part, versus 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA part.

Clock behavior also differs. The Ryzen Z2 Go runs a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz. The RTX 5070 SUPER runs a higher base of 2325 MHz but boosts to only 2512 MHz, indicating a flatter frequency curve under load. Pixel and texture rates follow the compute gap: 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD part, versus 201.0 GPixel/s and 502.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part.

Floating point throughput shows the largest relative gap. The Ryzen Z2 Go delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The RTX 5070 SUPER delivers 32.15 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.15 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a 7.75x FP32 advantage and a 3.88x FP16 advantage.

Process node, transistor count, memory type, and compute configuration all point to different design goals. The Ryzen Z2 Go prioritizes low power and compact integration. The RTX 5070 SUPER prioritizes raw throughput and memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs. The RTX 5070 SUPER has one recorded benchmark result, while the Ryzen Z2 Go has none. The wins counters show zero for both parts, reflecting the absence of common test data.

The only numerical comparison available comes from the RTX 5070 SUPER's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690. This benchmark exercises DirectX 12 Ultimate features, which both GPUs support. The Ryzen Z2 Go lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, as does the RTX 5070 SUPER. Both also support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The RTX 5070 SUPER's nearest rival data provides context for its performance tier. Against the Quadro K1100M, it leads by 1 percent. Against the GT 1030, it leads by 1.1 percent. Against the Arc Pro B50, it leads by 1.1 percent. Against the GT 440, it leads by 1.7 percent. These deltas are small, placing the RTX 5070 SUPER at the top of a tightly clustered group rather than far ahead of it.

For the Ryzen Z2 Go, the absence of benchmark data means its FP32 throughput of 4.147 TFLOPS cannot be validated against any recorded workload. The specification sheet indicates a capable low-power part, but the database shows no measurable evidence of its real-world performance.

The memory bandwidth differential, 672.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, would dominate any bandwidth-sensitive workload such as high-resolution texturing or ray tracing acceleration. The RT core count, 50 versus 12, further separates the parts in ray-traced scenarios. The tensor core count, 200 versus zero, removes AI-accelerated workloads from the AMD part's capabilities entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX 5070 SUPER delivers 32.15 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.147 TFLOPS for the Ryzen Z2 Go, a 7.75x advantage.

Q: How do memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RTX 5070 SUPER provides 672.0 GB/s from GDDR7 on a 192 bit bus, while the Ryzen Z2 Go provides 102.4 GB/s from LPDDR5 on a 128 bit bus.

Q: What power envelope does each GPU require?

A: The Ryzen Z2 Go runs at 28 W with no power connectors, while the RTX 5070 SUPER runs at 275 W with a single 16-pin connector.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the RTX 5070 SUPER's recorded benchmark score?

A: The database shows a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2690 for the RTX 5070 SUPER, with no recorded benchmark scores for the Ryzen Z2 Go.

Q: How does the RTX 5070 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the Quadro K1100M by 1 percent, the GT 1030 by 1.1 percent, the Arc Pro B50 by 1.1 percent, and the GT 440 by 1.7 percent.

The Verdict

The data directs each GPU to a distinct audience. The RTX 5070 SUPER is the performance choice, with a 7.75x FP32 advantage, 6.6x memory bandwidth advantage, and 50 RT cores versus 12. Its 2690 Steel Nomad score confirms measurable performance, and its 18th percentile ranking places it ahead of its nearest rivals by up to 1.7 percent.

The Ryzen Z2 Go is the efficiency choice. Its 28 W power draw, absent power connectors, and compact display output of a single USB Type-C make it suitable for low-power embedded systems. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory provides ample capacity for its class, and its 2700 MHz boost clock indicates a reasonable frequency ceiling for a 6 nm part.

The RTX 5070 SUPER cannot match the Ryzen Z2 Go's power efficiency, and the Ryzen Z2 Go cannot match the RTX 5070 SUPER's compute resources. The transistor counts tell the story: 31,100 million versus 13,100 million, with the NVIDIA die only 26 percent larger in area but holding 2.37x more transistors.

For desktop gaming, ray tracing, or AI-accelerated workloads, the RTX 5070 SUPER is the only choice between these two. For handheld consoles, thin clients, or fanless designs where power delivery is constrained, the Ryzen Z2 Go fits the requirement. The database shows no scenario where the two compete directly; they serve separate markets with no overlap in measured capability.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 31,100 million |

| Die size | 208 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Transistor density | 63.0M / mm² | 118.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 800 MHz | 2325 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2700 MHz | 2512 MHz |

| Memory clock | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz 28 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 18 GB |

| Memory type | LPDDR5 | GDDR7 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 6400 |

| TMUs | 48 | 200 |

| ROPs | 32 | 80 |

| RT cores | 12 | 50 |

| Tensor cores | None | 200 |

| Pixel rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 201.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 502.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 32.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.15 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 275 W |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Slot width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Bus interface | Not specified | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1b 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 245 mm 9.6 inches length, 115 mm 4.5 inches height, 40 mm 1.6 inches width |

| Release date | 2024-12-31T17:00:00.000Z | 2025-12-31T17:00:00.000Z |