AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is one-sided in terms of measured application results. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 has three recorded test scores. The RTX A1000 posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 52078, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 49574. With no corresponding measurements for the AMD part, direct per-test comparisons cannot be computed. What can be established from the database is the RTX A1000’s position against its nearest rivals, which places it in a specific performance tier.

Looking at the RTX A1000’s nearest rival data, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB averages 34154 points, which is 0.2% behind the RTX A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT also averages 34133 points, again 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA TITAN V averages 34355 points, putting it 0.4% ahead of the RTX A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33997 points, 0.6% behind. These deltas are small, indicating that the RTX A1000 sits in a tightly clustered performance band where the spread between the four nearest rivals is less than one percentage point in either direction. The RTX A1000’s average benchmark score is 34207, and it occupies the 79th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU holds the 50th percentile, though this is based on no recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile reflects a database placement rather than direct measured output.

The theoretical compute figures in the database show a different story. The RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS. That puts the NVIDIA part roughly 62% higher in raw FP32 throughput. In FP16, the RTX A1000 again posts 6.737 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU reaches 8.294 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Here the AMD part is ahead by about 23% in peak FP16 throughput, though the 2:1 ratio means that figure is achieved through packed execution rather than native full-rate FP16. The RTX A1000’s 1:1 FP16 rate indicates it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, which is typical of the Ampere architecture’s design for professional workloads.

Texture and pixel rates also favor different sides. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s, while the RTX A1000 posts 105.3 GTexel/s, a gap of roughly 23% in favor of the AMD chip. Pixel rate goes the other way: the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s versus the RTX A1000’s 46.78 GPixel/s, nearly double. Memory bandwidth heavily favors the RTX A1000, which reaches 192.0 GB/s with GDDR6 memory, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s LPDDR5. That is an 88% advantage for the NVIDIA card. Clock speeds differ substantially, with the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU boosting to 2700 MHz and the RTX A1000 boosting to 1462 MHz, but the RTX A1000 compensates with more shading units, 2304 versus 768, and more texture mapping units, 72 versus 48.

The Verdict

The database presents a split decision depending on the workload class. For measured general and graphics compute benchmarks, the RTX A1000 is the only part with recorded scores, and its 79th percentile placement among all GPUs indicates strong overall standing. Its nearest rivals, all within 0.6% of its average score, confirm that it lands in a competitive mid-range tier. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no benchmark data, so its 50th percentile cannot be validated through direct measurement. Any user relying on measured results must default to the RTX A1000 for applications covered by the recorded tests.

For raw FP32 compute, the RTX A1000 is clearly ahead at 6.737 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS. This matters for professional and scientific workloads that depend on single-precision floating point. The RTX A1000 also brings tensor cores, 72 of them, which the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lacks entirely. That makes the NVIDIA part the only option in this comparison for workloads that leverage tensor operations. The RTX A1000 also has more RT cores, 18 versus 12, and a higher memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, which is 88% higher than the AMD part. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 is half the capacity of the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s 16 GB of LPDDR5, but the bandwidth advantage is decisive for throughput-sensitive tasks.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins on capacity and some peak rates. Its 16 GB memory pool doubles the RTX A1000’s 8 GB, and its FP16 peak of 8.294 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is roughly 85% higher than the RTX A1000’s 46.78 GPixel/s, and the texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s is about 23% higher. Power consumption is substantially lower on the AMD side at 28 W versus 50 W, which is notable for compact or thermally constrained systems. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU also uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, while the RTX A1000 uses Samsung’s 8 nm node with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die.

The verdict depends on what the database can actually support. If the requirement is measured benchmark performance, professional compute features, and tensor acceleration, the RTX A1000 is the only choice with data. If the requirement is memory capacity, lower power draw, and higher peak FP16 and pixel throughput, the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has the specification advantage, but no benchmark scores exist to confirm real-world behavior.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins in scenarios that stress FP32 compute, tensor operations, and memory bandwidth. Its 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 rate is 62% higher than the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s 4.147 TFLOPS. The 72 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and training tasks, something the AMD part cannot offer. The 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 88% higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, which helps in bandwidth-bound workloads such as large data transfers, rendering large scenes, and certain compute kernels. The RTX A1000’s 2304 shading units are three times the 768 on the AMD part, giving it a large advantage in shader-heavy workloads that scale with core count. Its 18 RT cores also exceed the 12 on the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, which may benefit ray-traced rendering tasks. The RTX A1000’s 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-display professional setups, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a single USB Type-C output.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios that need more memory or higher peak rates in specific subcategories. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 is double the RTX A1000’s 8 GB, which matters for workloads with large working sets that exceed 8 GB, such as certain content creation tasks or large model loading. Its FP16 peak of 8.294 TFLOPS is 23% higher than the RTX A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS, though the AMD figure relies on a 2:1 packed rate. The pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is 85% higher, and the texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s is 23% higher, which could translate to advantages in fill-rate-bound rendering scenarios. The 28 W TDP is 44% lower than the RTX A1000’s 50 W, making it more suitable for low-power or passively cooled designs. The 6 nm TSMC process gives it a transistor density of 63.0M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm² for the RTX A1000, indicating a more modern manufacturing approach.

The database’s rival comparisons only exist for the RTX A1000, so the AMD part lacks any direct competitive context. The RTX A1000’s nearest rivals, the RTX A2000 12 GB, RX 560 XT, TITAN V, and RX 480, are all within 0.6% of its average score, which suggests the RTX A1000 offers performance in line with those established cards. No such anchors exist for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS, making the RTX A1000 approximately 62% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU have tensor cores?

A: No. The database lists no tensor cores for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 includes 72 tensor cores.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 102.4 GB/s from 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The RTX A1000’s bandwidth is 88% higher.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has a TDP of 50 W. The RTX A1000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 768 shading units, exactly one third of the RTX A1000’s count.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the RTX A1000?

A: The RTX A1000 has three recorded scores: 969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 52078 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 49574 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 34207, and it sits in the 79th percentile among all GPUs. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the Rembrandt+ chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. It integrates 13,100 million transistors across a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It integrates 8,700 million transistors across a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The AMD part thus packs roughly 51% more transistors into a slightly larger die, and its density advantage of about 45% reflects the more advanced process node.

The compute pipelines differ fundamentally. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and no tensor cores. The RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. Shader count favors NVIDIA by a 3:1 margin, while RT core count favors NVIDIA by a 3:2 margin. The tensor core presence is exclusive to the RTX A1000, providing dedicated hardware for matrix operations that the AMD part cannot match.

Memory subsystems differ in type and capacity. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 800 MHz, with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, producing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 1500 MHz, with 12 Gbps effective speed, producing 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use 128-bit buses, but the GDDR6 memory on the RTX A1000 operates at nearly double the effective data rate, resulting in 88% higher bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Clock behavior also differs. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, a wide range that suggests aggressive boosting behavior. The RTX A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost clock of 1462 MHz, with a much narrower boost range. The AMD part’s boost clock is 85% higher than the NVIDIA part’s boost clock, but the RTX A1000 compensates with its larger core count and memory bandwidth.

The RTX A1000 includes a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no bus interface in the database. The RTX A1000 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, and it has no power connectors. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no physical dimensions or slot width. Display outputs also differ: the RTX A1000 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU provides a single USB Type-C output. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Release timing and production status are listed for both. The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a release date of 2024-12-31 and is marked Active. The RTX A1000 has a release date of 2024-04-15, is also Active, and lists its predecessor as Quadro Turing and its successor as Workstation Ada. The RTX A1000’s generation is Workstation Ampere (Ax000), while the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s generation is Console GPU (AMD). Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.