AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two console GPUs along fairly clear architectural lines. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU claims the higher pixel throughput, posting 86.40 GPixel/s against the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU’s 22.40 GPixel/s. That is a 3.86x advantage in raw rasterization fill rate, which points to the AMD part winning any workload dominated by simple pixel shading, heavy overdraw, or high-resolution framebuffer writes.

Texture rate tells a similar story but with a smaller margin. The AMD Z2 Go delivers 129.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s for the Switch 2 GPU, a 1.93x lead. Games that stress bilinear or trilinear filtering, mipmap sampling, or texture-heavy post-processing should favor the AMD design. The NVIDIA part, however, counters in compute-oriented tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 4.301 TFLOPS edges out the AMD part’s 4.147 TFLOPS, a 3.7% lead. FP16 output also favors NVIDIA: 8.602 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also carries 48 tensor cores while the AMD part lists none, so any workload that leverages tensor operations, such as accelerated machine learning or certain upscaling paths, belongs to the Switch 2 GPU.

The AMD part wins on memory capacity with 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the NVIDIA part has 12 GB of LPDDR5X. Both run on a 128-bit bus and both deliver 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Capacity, not speed, differentiates them. The AMD GPU also has more ROPs, 32 versus 16, reinforcing its fill-rate dominance. The NVIDIA part has more shading units, 1536 versus 768, and more tensor cores, 48 versus none, suggesting its wins come from parallel compute rather than fixed-function output stages.

Neither part has head-to-head benchmark results in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of zero. That means the comparison here rests on specification-derived rates, not measured frame times.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and nodes. AMD uses TSMC’s 6 nm process, while NVIDIA uses Samsung’s 8 nm process. The AMD chip, Rembrandt+, integrates 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The NVIDIA chip, GA10B, has an unknown transistor count on a 200 mm² die, and no density figure is recorded.

Architecturally, AMD runs RDNA 2.0, NVIDIA runs Ampere. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity holds. The shading unit counts differ sharply: 768 on the AMD side versus 1536 on the NVIDIA side. The AMD part compensates with a much higher boost clock, 2700 MHz versus 1400 MHz, and a higher base clock, 800 MHz versus 561 MHz. That clock advantage explains how fewer shaders still produce comparable FP32 throughput.

Memory types also differ. AMD uses LPDDR5, NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X. Both run at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, and both achieve 102.4 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The AMD part has 16 GB, the NVIDIA part has 12 GB. The NVIDIA GPU includes 48 tensor cores and 12 RT cores; the AMD part also has 12 RT cores but no tensor core listing. ROP counts favor AMD at 32 versus 16, while TMU counts are equal at 48 each.

Power envelopes diverge. The AMD GPU has a 28 W TDP, the NVIDIA GPU has a 40 W TDP. The AMD part uses no power connectors and lists a single USB Type-C display output. The NVIDIA part lists no display outputs and has physical dimensions of 272 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 14 mm in width. The AMD part has no recorded dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

With no direct benchmark entries in the database, the head-to-head comparison must rely on the derived rates recorded for each GPU. The largest single gap is pixel rate. AMD delivers 86.40 GPixel/s, NVIDIA delivers 22.40 GPixel/s. That means the AMD part renders pixels at 3.86 times the speed of the NVIDIA part. In practical terms, a game engine that is fill-rate bound, such as one pushing large particles, alpha-blended effects, or high-resolution shadow maps, would see a substantial advantage on the AMD side.

Texture rate is the second major differentiator. AMD’s 129.6 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA’s 67.20 GTexel/s gives AMD a 1.93x lead. Texture-heavy scenes, including detailed terrain, surface detail, or anisotropic filtering workloads, should scale in AMD’s favor. The AMD part also leads in memory capacity, 16 GB versus 12 GB, which can matter for games that exceed 12 GB of asset residency, though the bandwidth identical at 102.4 GB/s means no speed advantage either way.

The NVIDIA part wins the compute race. Its FP32 output of 4.301 TFLOPS surpasses AMD’s 4.147 TFLOPS by 3.7%. FP16 output follows the same pattern: 8.602 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS, a 3.7% lead. These margins are modest, but they become significant in shader-heavy workloads that do not saturate the ROP or texture units. The NVIDIA part also has 48 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Any application that can route work through tensor cores, such as AI-based reconstruction, denoising, or inference, has a hardware path on the NVIDIA GPU that does not exist on the AMD GPU.

Shading unit count also favors NVIDIA, 1536 versus 768, but the clock speed difference compresses the practical impact. The AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz, nearly double the NVIDIA part’s 1400 MHz boost. That clock advantage allows the AMD GPU to match and slightly trail NVIDIA in FP32 despite having half the shader count.

The Verdict

The data draws a clean line between two different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU is a fill-rate and memory-capacity machine. Its 3.86x pixel-rate lead and 1.93x texture-rate lead, combined with 16 GB of memory and a 28 W TDP, make it the choice for scenarios that favor traditional rasterization throughput and larger memory pools. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU, with its 4.301 TFLOPS FP32, 48 tensor cores, and 1536 shading units, is the compute-oriented part. It offers slightly higher floating-point throughput and a dedicated tensor path, but it consumes 40 W, carries only 12 GB of memory, and lags far behind on pixel and texture rates.

The AMD part also appears more efficient in terms of fill rate per watt. At 28 W, it produces 86.40 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part at 40 W produces 22.40 GPixel/s. The AMD part delivers 129.6 GTexel/s at 28 W, while the NVIDIA part delivers 67.20 GTexel/s at 40 W. The NVIDIA part’s FP32 per watt is 0.108 TFLOPS/W, slightly above AMD’s 0.148 TFLOPS/W, but that margin is narrow and the AMD part wins the other two major output rates.

Neither part has measured benchmark scores, so judgment rests on specification-derived rates. For a system that prioritizes rendering speed at high fill rates and larger memory capacity, the AMD part is the stronger candidate. For a system that needs tensor acceleration, more shading units, and slightly higher raw FP32, the NVIDIA part fits better. The NVIDIA part also has a recorded launch MSRP of 449 USD; the AMD part has no such field.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 86.40 GPixel/s, which is 3.86 times higher than the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU’s 22.40 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB of LPDDR5X. Both use a 128-bit bus and both achieve 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 48 tensor cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU lists no tensor cores.

Q: How do their FP32 performance numbers compare?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU posts 4.301 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s 4.147 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has a 40 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, double the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU’s 768 shading units, though the AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz versus 1400 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Die size | 208 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | unknown |

| Transistor density | 63.0M / mm² | null |

| Base clock | 800 MHz | 561 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2700 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory type | LPDDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Shading units | 768 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 48 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT cores | 12 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | null | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 22.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 4.301 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 40 W |

| Display outputs | 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |

| Dimensions | null | 272 mm x 116 mm x 14 mm |

| Launch MSRP | null | 449 USD |