AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc A380M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clear split between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc A380M based on the specifications captured in the database. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers a higher pixel rate at 86.40 GPixel/s compared to the Intel Arc A380M’s 64.00 GPixel/s, which indicates an advantage in fill-rate bound scenarios such as high-resolution rasterization with heavy overdraw. The AMD part also leads in raw FP32 compute with 8.294 TFLOPS versus the Intel part’s 4.096 TFLOPS, giving it the edge in general-purpose shader workloads and most DirectX 12 or Vulkan rendering paths.

The Intel Arc A380M counters with a higher texture rate at 128.0 GTexel/s versus the AMD’s 129.6 GTexel/s, but that difference is marginal, only 1.6 GTexel/s in favor of AMD. The Intel part does win decisively in memory bandwidth with 186.0 GB/s versus 119.9 GB/s for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU, a 66.1 GB/s gap. This suggests the Intel part is better suited for bandwidth-hungry tasks such as high-resolution texture streaming or compute kernels that repeatedly access large data sets. The Intel Arc A380M also supports FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, nearly matching the AMD’s FP16 output of 8.294 TFLOPS, though the AMD part achieves that with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no throughput penalty for FP16 workloads.

In terms of shading resources, the Intel Arc A380M has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. The Intel part’s larger shader count does not translate into higher FP32 throughput due to architectural differences, but it does provide more parallel lanes for certain instruction mixes. The AMD part has 12 RT cores versus the Intel part’s 8 RT cores, giving AMD a potential advantage in ray-traced scenes that scale with RT core count.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip built on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: the AMD part packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The Intel part integrates 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, for a density of 45.9M per mm². The AMD chip is therefore roughly 3.5 times denser in transistor packing, which reflects the newer fabrication process.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 937 MHz or 7.5 Gbps effective, delivering 119.9 GB/s. The Intel Arc A380M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1937 MHz or 15.5 Gbps effective, delivering 186.0 GB/s. Despite having a narrower bus, the Intel part achieves higher bandwidth due to faster memory clocks. The AMD part has more than double the memory capacity, which matters for large working sets or modern game assets that exceed 6 GB.

Clock speeds also diverge. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc A380M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz. The AMD part’s boost clock is 700 MHz higher, which contributes to its higher FP32 throughput. The Intel part’s higher base clock suggests better sustained performance at lower power states, but the database shows the AMD part has a lower TDP of 28 W versus the Intel part’s 35 W.

Power delivery and form factor differ as well. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no power connectors and uses a single USB Type-C display output, indicating an integrated or embedded design. The Intel Arc A380M is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.1) bus interface, and its display outputs are marked as portable device dependent. The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile) generation.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists for modern workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived metrics provided. The largest win for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU appears in FP32 compute: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380M. That is a 4.198 TFLOPS difference, meaning the AMD part delivers roughly double the single-precision floating-point throughput. This translates directly into faster shader execution for most game rendering, where FP32 arithmetic dominates.

Pixel rate favors the AMD part as well. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU outputs 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc A380M outputs 64.00 GPixel/s. The 22.40 GPixel/s gap indicates the AMD part can fill more screen area per second, which benefits high-resolution rendering with multiple render targets or heavy post-processing effects. The AMD part also has more RT cores: 12 versus 8, a 4-core advantage that scales in ray-traced workloads.

The Intel Arc A380M wins in texture rate by a narrow margin? No, the data shows the AMD part leads there too: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, a 1.6 GTexel/s advantage. The Intel part’s only clear specification win is memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 119.9 GB/s, a 66.1 GB/s difference. That bandwidth advantage could help in scenarios where the GPU is streaming large textures or running compute kernels with high memory traffic, but it does not compensate for the FP32 deficit in most rasterized workloads.

The Intel Arc A380M has a higher base clock at 1550 MHz versus 800 MHz for the AMD part, but the AMD boost clock reaches 2700 MHz, which is 700 MHz higher than the Intel’s 2000 MHz boost. The AMD part’s higher boost clock, combined with its denser transistor layout, explains its superior peak throughput figures. The Intel part’s FP16 output at 8.192 TFLOPS nearly matches the AMD’s 8.294 TFLOPS, but the AMD part achieves parity with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no special handling is needed for FP16 workloads. The Intel part’s 2:1 ratio implies a separate FP16 path that may not be as flexible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS, which is double the Intel Arc A380M’s 4.096 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 119.9 GB/s. The Intel part leads by 66.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 12 RT cores, compared to 8 RT cores on the Intel Arc A380M.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is built on a 4 nm process, while the Intel Arc A380M is built on a 6 nm process, both at TSMC.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W and no power connectors, while the Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W and uses an MXM module form factor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc A380M:

• Chip: Hawk Point versus DG2-128
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Xe-HPG
• Generation: Console GPU (AMD) versus Alchemist (Arc 3 Mobile)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 25,390 million versus 7,200 million
• Die Size: 178 mm² versus 157 mm²
• Transistor Density: 142.6M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 800 MHz versus 1550 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2700 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 937 MHz 7.5 Gbps effective versus 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 16 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory Type: LPDDR5X versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 96 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 119.9 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 versus 1024
• TMUs: 48 versus 64
• RT Cores: 12 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 28 W versus 35 W
• Slot Width: None versus MXM Module
• Power Connectors: None versus not specified
• Bus Interface: Not specified versus MXM-A (3.1)
• Display Outputs: 1x USB Type-C versus Portable Device Dependent
• Release Date: 2024-12-31 versus 2023-01-23