AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc 130T Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD chip is the Hawk Point, while Intel uses the Arrow Lake-H chip.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare between these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The AMD part maintains a higher boost frequency by 500 MHz.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance depends entirely on the host platform.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput in FP32 operations?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than double the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS. The AMD part achieves this with 768 shading units at a 2700 MHz boost clock.

Q: How do the power requirements differ between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a TDP of 35 W. Despite the lower power envelope, the AMD GPU delivers substantially higher compute performance.

Q: What is the release timing for these products?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU was released on 2024-12-31, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile followed on 2025-01-12. Both are currently listed as Active production status.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and Intel Arc 130T Mobile represent two fundamentally different design philosophies within the mobile graphics segment. The AMD part uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, while Intel employs the Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. This process node advantage gives AMD a denser transistor layout, with the Hawk Point chip containing 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, translating to a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². Intel does not disclose transistor counts or die size for the Arrow Lake-H chip, but the 5 nm process suggests a less dense implementation.

The compute layouts diverge significantly. AMD's RDNA 3.0 design uses 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. Intel's Xe-LPG+ uses a wider shading unit count of 896 but pairs it with 56 TMUs and only 28 ROPs. This configuration gives Intel more parallel shading capacity but fewer rasterization pipelines, which affects fill-rate performance. The AMD GPU also includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part has 7 RT cores, suggesting different ray tracing throughput characteristics.

Memory architecture presents the starkest difference. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective transfer. In contrast, the Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth marked as system dependent. This means Intel's memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system's memory configuration, while AMD guarantees a dedicated bandwidth allocation.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD GPU operates with an 800 MHz base clock and boosts to 2700 MHz, a substantial 1900 MHz boost range. Intel's part starts at a 300 MHz base and reaches 2200 MHz boost, a 1900 MHz range as well but from a much lower floor. The higher boost ceiling on AMD's part contributes directly to its compute advantage.

Power delivery reflects these architectural choices. AMD specifies a 28 W TDP with no power connectors required, while Intel lists a 35 W TDP. Intel's part is an IGP with no dedicated power connector and no suggested PSU, fitting its integrated nature. AMD's display output is a single USB Type-C port, while Intel's display outputs are portable device dependent, reflecting its integration into mobile platforms.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The production status for both is Active. Intel's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, while AMD has no predecessor specified. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation under the Arrow Lake family, while AMD's generation is categorized as Console GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc 130T Mobile. However, the specification-derived performance metrics provide a clear quantitative comparison across multiple dimensions.

In FP32 compute, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS, which is 2.352 TFLOPS more than double the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS. This represents a 110.4% advantage for AMD in single-precision floating-point throughput. The FP16 comparison shows a different pattern: AMD delivers 8.294 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while Intel delivers 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. In absolute terms, AMD holds a 5.2% lead in FP16 throughput, but Intel's 2:1 ratio indicates it can achieve this rate using half the instruction issue rate, which may indicate different efficiency characteristics.

Pixel fill rate favors AMD decisively. The Ryzen Z2 GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Arc 130T Mobile manages 61.60 GPixel/s. This is a 40.3% advantage for AMD, driven by the combination of 32 ROPs and the 2700 MHz boost clock. Intel's 28 ROPs at a lower 2200 MHz boost clock cannot match this throughput.

Texture fill rate shows a narrower margin. AMD produces 129.6 GTexel/s, while Intel delivers 123.2 GTexel/s, a 5.2% advantage for AMD. This smaller gap reflects Intel's higher TMU count of 56 versus AMD's 48, partially offsetting the clock disadvantage.

The memory bandwidth comparison is not direct because Intel's bandwidth is system dependent. AMD's fixed 119.9 GB/s from its dedicated LPDDR5X memory provides a guaranteed floor that Intel cannot match unless the host system provides exceptionally fast shared memory. The 128-bit bus width on AMD's part ensures consistent bandwidth regardless of other system activity.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite their architectural differences. The average benchmark score for both is 0, which reflects the absence of recorded benchmark runs rather than a performance equivalence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU | Intel Arc 130T Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe-LPG+ |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 937 MHz, 7.5 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 119.9 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 768 | 896 |

| TMUs | 48 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 28 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 7 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 61.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.294 TFLOPS | 3.942 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | null | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Bus Interface | null | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2025-01-12 |

| Predecessor | null | HD Graphics-M |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU establishes clear advantages in compute-intensive workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS versus Intel's 3.942 TFLOPS makes it the stronger choice for applications that rely on single-precision math, including general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulations, and traditional rasterization workloads. The 40.3% pixel rate advantage (86.40 GPixel/s versus 61.60 GPixel/s) indicates superior performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw.

The AMD part also wins on memory consistency. Its dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X memory with 119.9 GB/s fixed bandwidth ensures predictable performance, while Intel's system shared memory creates variable results depending on the host platform. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, such as texture streaming or large buffer operations, AMD's fixed allocation provides a reliable baseline.

Power efficiency favors AMD as well. The 28 W TDP delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 35 W Intel part delivers only 3.942 TFLOPS. This means AMD achieves approximately double the compute per watt, a meaningful advantage for mobile platforms where thermal and battery constraints are paramount.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins on shading unit count with 896 versus AMD's 768, which may benefit workloads that scale well with parallel thread occupancy rather than raw clock speed. Its 56 TMUs versus AMD's 48 provide more texture-mapping parallelism, though the lower clock rate limits the realized advantage to a 5.2% deficit in texture fill rate.

Intel's FP16 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio shows a different compute strategy. While AMD's 1:1 ratio means its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate, Intel's 2:1 ratio indicates the hardware can process FP16 at twice the rate of FP32. For machine learning inference or media processing that leverages FP16 arithmetic, Intel's design provides competitive throughput despite its lower FP32 capability.

The Intel part's IGP form factor and system shared memory make it suitable for tightly integrated mobile designs where dedicated memory adds cost and complexity. Its 35 W TDP, while higher than AMD's 28 W, still fits within portable device constraints. The predecessor designation of HD Graphics-M indicates an evolutionary path from Intel's integrated graphics lineup.

For ray tracing workloads, AMD's 12 RT cores versus Intel's 7 RT cores suggests better ray traversal performance, though no benchmark data validates this directly. The RT core count difference aligns with AMD's overall compute advantage.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger performer in most measurable categories: FP32 compute, pixel rate, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and power efficiency. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile offers higher shading unit and TMU counts, plus a competitive FP16 throughput, but these advantages do not translate into superior realized performance given its clock and memory constraints. Both parts occupy the 50th percentile in the database, indicating they serve similar performance tiers, but the AMD design achieves this with a more efficient architecture.