AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc 130V Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, uses the Hawk Point chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, and has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. It features 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth, and runs at a base clock of 800 MHz with a boost clock of 2700 MHz.

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Arc 130V Mobile?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, uses the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture, and has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. Its memory is system shared, with system-dependent bandwidth, and it runs at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost clock of 1850 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 2.5 times higher in raw single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of thermal design power?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel part draws more power according to the recorded specifications.

Q: What is the difference in texture fill rate between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a texture rate of 103.6 GTexel/s. The AMD part is faster in this metric.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Their API feature sets are identical according to the database.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split between the two parts based on workload priorities. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger candidate for compute-heavy tasks, given its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the Intel Arc 130V Mobile's 3.315 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s also exceeds the Intel part's 51.80 GPixel/s, which suggests better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile counters with a higher shading unit count (896 vs. 768), more TMUs (56 vs. 48), and a higher TDP (37 W vs. 28 W). Its FP16 throughput of 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is more than double its FP32 rate, indicating that mixed-precision workloads may see a relative benefit. However, its raw FP32 and pixel throughput lag substantially.

For users prioritizing raw rasterization throughput, pixel fill, or single-precision compute, the AMD part is the logical choice from the recorded metrics. For those who need a lower-power integrated solution with more shading units and a different FP16 ratio, the Intel part offers its own profile. The database shows both at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, meaning neither stands out in overall performance ranking, but their specific metric distributions point to different strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty in the database, so no direct benchmark scores are available for comparison. However, the recorded specifications allow for a quantitative comparison of theoretical performance ceilings.

The most significant gap is in FP32 compute: AMD's 8.294 TFLOPS is 150% higher than Intel's 3.315 TFLOPS. This is a massive delta that would dominate any compute-bound application. In pixel rate, AMD's 86.40 GPixel/s is 66.8% higher than Intel's 51.80 GPixel/s, which suggests a substantial advantage in simple fragment shading scenarios.

Texture rate favors AMD as well: 129.6 GTexel/s versus Intel's 103.6 GTexel/s, a 25.1% difference. This would impact texture-heavy scenes, though the margin is smaller than the compute gap.

The Intel part has its own advantages. It has 128 more shading units (896 vs. 768), which is a 16.7% increase. It also has 8 more TMUs (56 vs. 48), a 16.7% increase. Its FP16 throughput of 6.630 TFLOPS is close to AMD's FP16 of 8.294 TFLOPS, but Intel achieves this at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 performance is double its FP32 performance. AMD's FP16 runs at a 1:1 ratio, so its FP16 equals its FP32.

Clock speeds tell a story as well: AMD boosts to 2700 MHz, while Intel boosts to 1850 MHz. The AMD boost clock is 45.9% higher, which helps explain its fill rate and compute advantages despite having fewer shading units. Intel's base clock of 300 MHz is significantly lower than AMD's 800 MHz, indicating a very different power and clock strategy.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every physical and logical specification in the database.

• Process Node: AMD uses 4 nm, Intel uses 3 nm.
• Transistors: AMD has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die (density of 142.6M / mm²). Intel's transistor count is unknown, with a die size of 172 mm².
• Memory: AMD has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.
• Shading Units: AMD has 768, Intel has 896.
• TMUs: AMD has 48, Intel has 56.
• ROPs: AMD has 32, Intel has 28.
• Ray Tracing Cores: AMD has 12, Intel has 7.
• Clocks: AMD base 800 MHz, boost 2700 MHz, memory clock 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective). Intel base 300 MHz, boost 1850 MHz, memory clock system shared.
• TDP: AMD is 28 W, Intel is 37 W.
• Slot Width: AMD has none listed, Intel is IGP.
• Bus Interface: AMD has none listed, Intel is IGP.
• Display Outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C, Intel is portable device dependent.
• Release Date: AMD released 2024-12-31, Intel released 2024-09-23.
• Predecessor: AMD has none, Intel lists HD Graphics-M.

Both share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD uses RDNA 3.0 on the Hawk Point chip, a dedicated console GPU generation. Intel uses Xe2-LPG on the Lunar Lake chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation.

The FP16 behavior differs sharply. AMD's FP16 runs at 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not use packed math. Intel's FP16 runs at 6.630 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. This suggests Intel's architecture is designed for mixed-precision workloads where FP16 throughput matters, while AMD's design prioritizes uniform FP32 performance.

Ray tracing hardware also differs: AMD has 12 RT cores, Intel has 7. The database does not provide ray tracing benchmark scores, so the practical impact is not measured here.

The transistor density metric (142.6M / mm² for AMD) indicates a very dense design, while Intel's transistor count is unknown, preventing a density comparison.

Memory architecture is another key difference. AMD uses dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X with a fixed 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning bandwidth is dependent on the host system's memory configuration. This makes AMD's memory performance predictable, while Intel's varies by platform.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in:

• Raw FP32 compute: 8.294 TFLOPS vs. 3.315 TFLOPS, a 2.5x advantage. Any workload that relies on single-precision floating point will see a major throughput difference.
• Pixel fill rate: 86.40 GPixel/s vs. 51.80 GPixel/s, a 66.8% advantage. This benefits simple shading, depth buffer fills, and resolution scaling.
• Texture fill rate: 129.6 GTexel/s vs. 103.6 GTexel/s, a 25.1% advantage. Texture-heavy scenes will render faster on the AMD part.
• Dedicated memory: 16 GB of LPDDR5X with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth provides a consistent memory environment, versus Intel's system-dependent shared memory.
• Ray tracing cores: 12 vs. 7, though no benchmark data exists to quantify the impact.
• Lower TDP: 28 W vs. 37 W, meaning the AMD part fits in a lower power envelope.

Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in:

• Shading unit count: 896 vs. 768, a 16.7% higher count. This could help in workloads that scale with SIMD width, though the lower clock speed (1850 MHz vs. 2700 MHz) offsets much of this.
• TMU count: 56 vs. 48, a 16.7% higher count. Again, the clock speed difference reduces the practical benefit.
• FP16 throughput: 6.630 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning Intel's architecture can double its FP32 rate when using FP16 data. AMD's FP16 is capped at its FP32 rate.
• Newer process node: 3 nm vs. 4 nm, which suggests potential efficiency gains, though the TDP is higher.
• Higher TDP: 37 W vs. 28 W. While this is a disadvantage for power, it also indicates a higher power budget for sustained performance.
• Earlier release date: 2024-09-23 vs. 2024-12-31, meaning the Intel part has been available longer in the market.

The data does not include benchmark scores or nearest rival comparisons, so these conclusions are drawn strictly from the recorded specifications. The empty head-to-head benchmark array prevents any empirical validation of these theoretical differences.