AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation. There are no recorded scores for the AMD part in any benchmark test, and the NVIDIA part has scores in two tests only. With that limitation, the comparison must rely on the recorded data for the NVIDIA part, its position among rivals, and the architectural specifications of both products.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 175,286 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 194,041. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 184,664. That average places it at the 98th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms nearly all other recorded graphics cards.

For context, the nearest rivals to the RTX 5000 Ada Generation in the database are the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D. The RTX 5000 Ada sits 0.5% ahead of the A100 SXM4 80 GB, which has an average score of 183,725. It trails the A100 SXM4 40 GB by 1.3%, as that card records an average of 187,147. Against the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, the RTX 5000 Ada is 1.4% ahead, with the rival at 182,109. The GeForce RTX 4090 D sits 3.7% behind, posting an average of 178,050.

These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX 5000 Ada Generation is tightly clustered with the top-tier accelerators in the database. The 3.7% lead over the RTX 4090 D is the largest gap among its nearest rivals, while the 1.3% deficit to the A100 SXM4 40 GB is the only instance where it falls behind.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals recorded. Its percentile rank of 50 places it in the middle of the database distribution, but that percentile is not derived from any measured performance; it reflects the absence of data rather than a verified result. The wins count is zero for both parts, since no head-to-head tests exist.

Without direct comparisons, the only quantitative performance data available belongs to the NVIDIA part. The AMD part's performance profile must be inferred from its specifications, which are substantially different from the NVIDIA part, as detailed in later sections.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is the only part in this comparison with recorded benchmark results. It wins in every category where data exists: OpenCL compute, Vulkan graphics, and overall average score. Its 98th percentile ranking confirms that it sits among the fastest GPUs in the database, and its average score of 184,664 is more than double that of many mainstream cards, though specific comparisons beyond its nearest rivals are not recorded.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded wins in any benchmark category. The database lists zero wins for it, and there are no tests where it outperforms the NVIDIA part. This does not necessarily mean it is inferior in all tasks; rather, the data is simply absent. The AMD part is designed as a console GPU with a 28 W power envelope, which suggests a low-power integrated-class solution, but the database does not provide measured performance to confirm how it behaves under load.

For use-case analysis, the NVIDIA part's specifications point to workstation-grade tasks. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, 256-bit bus, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth support large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 400 tensor cores and 100 RT cores indicate strong acceleration for AI inference and ray-traced workloads. The four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups.

The AMD part, with 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, targets a different segment. The single USB Type-C output limits display connectivity, and the 28 W power draw suggests a fanless or passively cooled design for compact systems. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture with 12 RT cores provides some ray tracing capability, but the 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is an order of magnitude below the NVIDIA part's 65.28 TFLOPS.

The data implies the NVIDIA part wins decisively in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature support. The AMD part's advantages lie in power efficiency and physical footprint, though those are not benchmark victories.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 184,664 across its recorded tests. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average is listed as 0.

Q: How does the RTX 5000 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, 1.3% behind the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB, 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, and 3.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for both GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers 65.28 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part also includes tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks.

Q: What is the power consumption of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested power supply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W and uses no power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The process nodes are different: the AMD part uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. Transistor counts diverge significantly, with the AMD part at 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, and the NVIDIA part at 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the NVIDIA part at 125.3M per mm² versus 63.0M per mm² for the AMD part.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. 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 1155 MHz and a boost clock of 2550 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD part runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA part runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory specifications are substantially different. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 5.6 times the bandwidth of the AMD part.

The compute units differ greatly. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 12,800 shading units, 400 TMUs, 176 ROPs, 100 RT cores, and 400 tensor cores. Pixel rates are 86.40 GPixel/s for the AMD part and 448.8 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rates are 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD part and 1,020.0 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. FP16 throughput is 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) for the AMD part and 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) for the NVIDIA part, meaning the NVIDIA part does not sacrifice half-precision rate.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP and no power connectors. The NVIDIA part has a 250 W TDP, a dual-slot design, one 16-pin power connector, and a 600 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA part is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 112 mm tall (4.4 inches). The AMD part has no recorded dimensions. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface; the AMD part has no recorded bus interface.

Display outputs differ: the AMD part has one USB Type-C output, while the NVIDIA part has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The release dates are also different: the AMD part was released on 2024-12-31, and the NVIDIA part on 2023-08-08. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Workstation Ampere) and a successor (Blackwell PRO W); the AMD part has neither recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, with the chip codename Rembrandt+. It belongs to the Console GPU generation for AMD. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, with the chip AD102. It belongs to the Workstation Ada generation and is part of the GeForce 50-series.

The transistor density gap reflects architectural differences. The NVIDIA part packs 125.3M transistors per mm², indicating a denser, more complex design. The AMD part achieves 63.0M per mm², which is roughly half the density. The NVIDIA part's 76,300 million transistors versus 13,100 million represents a 5.8x difference in transistor count.

The memory architecture differs in type and configuration. The AMD part uses LPDDR5, which is typically integrated or soldered for low-power mobile or console use. The NVIDIA part uses GDDR6, a discrete memory type common in workstation and desktop GPUs. The bus widths reflect this: 128-bit for the AMD part versus 256-bit for the NVIDIA part.

The compute feature set differs in tensor core availability. The AMD part has no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA part has 400. This indicates the NVIDIA part is designed for AI and deep learning workloads, while the AMD part focuses on rasterization and basic compute. The RT core counts also differ: 12 for the AMD part versus 100 for the NVIDIA part, a 8.3x difference in ray tracing hardware.

The FP16 execution model differs. The AMD part runs FP16 at 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves the FP32 rate for half-precision. The NVIDIA part runs FP16 at 1:1, matching its FP32 rate. This means the NVIDIA part does not lose throughput when switching to half-precision, which is relevant for AI inference and certain compute workloads.

The process node difference matters for power efficiency. The AMD part uses 6 nm TSMC, while the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm TSMC. The AMD part's 28 W TDP is far below the NVIDIA part's 250 W, but the RDNA 2.0 architecture is older than Ada Lovelace. The NVIDIA part also has a larger die area at 609 mm² versus 208 mm², which explains its higher transistor count and power draw.

The bus interface is another architectural difference. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, providing high bandwidth to the host system. The AMD part has no recorded bus interface, which may indicate an integrated or embedded design without a standard expansion slot.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between these two products. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is a high-end workstation GPU with recorded benchmark scores in the 98th percentile. Its average score of 184,664 places it among the fastest GPUs in the database, with only the A100 SXM4 40 GB outperforming it among its nearest rivals. The 32 GB memory, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 compute make it suitable for large-scale compute, AI training, and professional rendering.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be verified from the database. Its specifications indicate a low-power console-class GPU with 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 compute. The 28 W TDP and single USB Type-C output suggest a compact, power-efficient design for handheld or embedded systems rather than a workstation replacement.

For users who require the benchmark-verified performance of the NVIDIA part, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation is the only option with measured results. Its 400 tensor cores and 100 RT cores deliver features the AMD part does not offer. The AMD part, however, uses far less power and has no external power connectors, making it easier to integrate into small form factors.

The database does not provide enough information to declare a winner in any direct test, since no head-to-head benchmarks exist. Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA part is the higher-performing GPU, the AMD part is the lower-power alternative, and their architectural differences target entirely different use cases.