AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays and zero recorded wins on either side. This absence of comparative measurements means any assessment must rely entirely on the specification sheets and architectural parameters stored in the database.

What the database does provide are the raw compute metrics for each part, and these differ substantially. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU produces 4.147 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly three times the FP32 throughput of the AMD part. The texture rate tells a similar story: 193.0 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA GPU versus 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD GPU. Pixel rates are closer, with the NVIDIA part at 96.48 GPixel/s and the AMD part at 86.40 GPixel/s, a difference of about 12 percent.

Memory bandwidth is another clear divider. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, but its bandwidth is only 102.4 GB/s. The NVIDIA part therefore offers 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the AMD part, despite having half the memory capacity. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, this is a decisive gap.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is identical in the database. Neither part has any nearest rivals listed, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are both recorded as zero, which is consistent with the absence of direct measurements.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the specification data, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger compute part. Its FP32 throughput is 12.35 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, its texture rate is 193.0 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, and its memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also has more shading units (3072 versus 768), more texture mapping units (96 versus 48), more raster output units (48 versus 32), more ray tracing cores (24 versus 12), and it includes 96 tensor cores, a feature the AMD part does not list at all.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU counters with a larger memory pool of 16 GB versus 8 GB, a higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 2010 MHz, and a lower thermal design power of 28 W versus 50 W. Its base clock of 800 MHz is far below the NVIDIA base of 1530 MHz, but the boost behavior narrows that gap. The AMD part also uses a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm, both manufactured by TSMC.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, higher bandwidth, and tensor core acceleration, the database points clearly toward the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation. For users who need more memory capacity and lower power draw, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has the advantage. The choice comes down to whether those two factors outweigh the NVIDIA part's substantial compute lead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU produces 4.147 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately three times faster in this metric.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus width.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 50 W. Neither part requires external power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 3072 shading units, compared to 768 for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. This is a 4:1 ratio in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What are the ray tracing core counts?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 24 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 96 tensor cores, which the AMD part does not list.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process node with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 118.9 million per mm². The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses a 6 nm process with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, which aligns with its higher compute output.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 2010 MHz. The AMD part's boost clock is 690 MHz higher, but its base clock is 730 MHz lower, indicating a much wider operating range.

Memory type separates the two clearly: LPDDR5 for AMD versus GDDR6 for NVIDIA. Memory size favors AMD at 16 GB versus 8 GB, but bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The memory clock is recorded as 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for AMD, and 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

The NVIDIA part has a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part lists no bus interface in the database. Display outputs are also different: the AMD part uses a single USB Type-C output, while the NVIDIA part is listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The NVIDIA part is classified as an IGP slot width, while the AMD part has no slot width recorded.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are fundamentally different generations. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Rembrandt+, classified in the database as a Console GPU. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD107 chip, classified under the GeForce 20-series and the Ada-MW generation. The NVIDIA part has a recorded predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW), while the AMD part has neither.

Core counts demonstrate the architectural scale difference. The NVIDIA part has 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA GPU also supports FP16 at 12.35 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the AMD GPU achieves 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part's FP16 performance is actually higher despite the AMD part's ratio advantage on paper.

Transistor counts differ by about 44 percent: 18,900 million for NVIDIA versus 13,100 million for AMD. Die sizes are closer, with AMD at 208 mm² and NVIDIA at 159 mm². The release dates in the database show the NVIDIA part launched on 2023-03-20, while the AMD part is dated 2024-12-31. Both are marked as Active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every raw compute category except clock speed and memory capacity. Its FP32 throughput of 12.35 TFLOPS is nearly three times the AMD part's 4.147 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s exceeds the AMD part's 129.6 GTexel/s by roughly 49 percent. Its pixel rate of 96.48 GPixel/s edges out the AMD part's 86.40 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is 2.5 times the AMD part's 102.4 GB/s. The tensor core count of 96 gives it dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the AMD part simply does not have. For any compute-heavy workload, the database points squarely at the NVIDIA part.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in memory capacity with 16 GB versus 8 GB, which matters for workloads that need to hold large datasets in local memory. It also has a higher boost clock at 2700 MHz versus 2010 MHz, which can help in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks that scale with clock speed rather than core count. Its TDP of 28 W versus 50 W makes it more power-efficient in absolute terms, which is relevant for thermally constrained embedded designs. The single USB Type-C display output may simplify cabling in some systems, though the NVIDIA part's portable-device-dependent outputs are more flexible by design.

For ray tracing, the NVIDIA part has double the ray tracing cores (24 versus 12), and its Ada Lovelace architecture is designed for that workload. The AMD part's RDNA 2.0 architecture supports ray tracing but with fewer dedicated resources. Neither part has direct benchmark scores in the database, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification sheets. The data indicates two different design philosophies: the NVIDIA part maximizes compute density and bandwidth, while the AMD part prioritizes capacity and low power consumption.