AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc G3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU versus the Intel Arc G3. Both products show an average benchmark score of 0, and neither has any individual benchmark results listed. The percentileVsAllGpus field places both at the 50th percentile, indicating that neither has accumulated enough measured performance data to establish a differentiated standing among all GPUs in the database.

The absence of benchmark data means that no direct comparisons of frame rates, compute throughput, or rendering performance can be made from the recorded measurements. The winsA and winsB counters are both at 0, confirming that neither product has a recorded victory in any head-to-head test. This is not a statement about real-world capability; it is simply a reflection of what the database currently contains. Until benchmark runs are populated, any quantitative comparison of actual performance between these two parts remains unavailable.

What the data does provide is a set of architectural and specification-based indicators that can be analyzed independently of benchmark scores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc G3 reaches 6.144 TFLOPS in FP32. In FP16, the Intel part outputs 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 execution ratio, whereas the AMD part achieves 8.294 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. These figures represent theoretical peak rates, not measured application performance, but they do illustrate different design priorities: AMD emphasizes consistent FP32 and FP16 throughput, while Intel allocates greater FP16 capability relative to its FP32 output.

Pixel fill rates differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU renders at 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc G3 renders at 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates also favor AMD: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. These values are derived from clock speeds and core counts, and they indicate that the AMD part has a higher theoretical capacity for rasterization-heavy workloads. The AMD GPU also has more ROPs (32 versus 20) and more TMUs (48 versus 40), though the Intel part carries more shading units (1280 versus 768).

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X with a 128-bit bus and 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc G3 relies on system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the Intel part's memory performance is contingent on the host platform, while the AMD part has a fixed, dedicated memory subsystem.

Clock behavior also diverges. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The AMD GPU's memory clock is 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, while the Intel GPU's memory clock is tied to the system.

The Verdict

The data does not support a performance verdict between these two GPUs because no benchmark scores exist in the database. Neither product has recorded wins, measured scores, or relative performance comparisons. However, specification analysis suggests distinct use profiles.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU appears oriented toward dedicated, consistent rendering throughput with fixed memory. Its higher FP32 rate, pixel rate, and texture rate, combined with 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X, indicate a design suited for sustained workloads where memory bandwidth is predictable and not shared with the CPU. The 28 W TDP and 4 nm process node (TSMC) position it as a power-efficient integrated-class GPU with a defined memory footprint.

The Intel Arc G3 appears oriented toward flexibility and integration. Its system shared memory model means the GPU draws from the same memory pool as the CPU, which can be advantageous in memory-constrained designs but also introduces variability. The higher shading unit count (1280) and superior FP16 throughput (12.29 TFLOPS) suggest a design that may favor compute workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, though the lower pixel and texture rates indicate a more modest rasterization ceiling.

A user or integrator choosing between these parts would need to weigh the AMD GPU's fixed memory and higher fill rates against the Intel GPU's greater shading unit count and FP16 capability. The database currently cannot confirm which part delivers better real-world performance, so the selection must rest on the specification differences and the target platform's memory architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 peak throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU reaches 8.294 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Intel Arc G3 reaches 6.144 TFLOPS. AMD holds the FP32 advantage.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X with a 128-bit bus and 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc G3 uses system shared memory with system dependent bus width and bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc G3 has 1280 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768. Intel has a 512-unit advantage in this metric.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc G3 is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, compared to 48.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc G3. AMD is 38.40 GPixel/s higher.

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.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field, with the exception of API support and power connector requirements.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc G3 operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Boost clock difference: 300 MHz in favor of AMD.

Memory differs completely. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X with a 128-bit bus and 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective; Intel's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Shading units: AMD has 768, Intel has 1280. TMUs: AMD has 48, Intel has 40. ROPs: AMD has 32, Intel has 20. RT cores: AMD has 12, Intel has 10.

Pixel rate: AMD at 86.40 GPixel/s, Intel at 48.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD at 129.6 GTexel/s, Intel at 96.00 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD at 8.294 TFLOPS, Intel at 6.144 TFLOPS. FP16: AMD at 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1), Intel at 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD at 28 W, Intel at 25 W. Process node: AMD at 4 nm (TSMC), Intel at 3 nm (Intel). Transistor count: AMD at 25,390 million, Intel unknown. Die size: AMD at 178 mm², Intel unknown. Transistor density: AMD at 142.6M / mm², Intel not listed.

Slot width: AMD has no value, Intel is listed as IGP. Bus interface: AMD has no value, Intel is listed as IGP. Display outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C, Intel is listed as portable device dependent.

Both GPUs have no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Hawk Point chip. It belongs to the Console GPU (AMD) generation. The Intel Arc G3 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with the Panther Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation.

The AMD part uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part uses a 3 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The AMD transistor density is 142.6M / mm²; Intel has no listed density.

The AMD GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The Intel GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores. The Intel part has more shading units but fewer TMUs, ROPs, and RT cores.

FP16 execution ratios differ: AMD runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, while Intel runs FP16 at 2:1, effectively doubling half-precision throughput relative to single-precision. This indicates a different compute philosophy, with Intel allocating more silicon to half-precision operations.

The AMD GPU has a fixed memory subsystem with dedicated LPDDR5X. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory, which means its memory behavior is platform-dependent. The AMD display output is a single USB Type-C; Intel's display output is dependent on the portable device.

Both architectures support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as active production status. Release dates differ: AMD on 2024-12-31 and Intel on 2026-05-31.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins on specification metrics related to rasterization throughput. Its FP32 peak of 8.294 TFLOPS is 34.99% higher than the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 80% higher (86.40 versus 48.00 GPixel/s). Texture rate is 35% higher (129.6 versus 96.00 GTexel/s). It also has more ROPs (32 versus 20), more TMUs (48 versus 40), and more RT cores (12 versus 10). Its dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X memory with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed memory environment that does not depend on host system configuration.

The Intel Arc G3 wins on shading unit count and FP16 performance. It has 1280 shading units, which is 66.67% more than the AMD part's 768. Its FP16 peak of 12.29 TFLOPS is 48.18% higher than the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS. The 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests a compute advantage in workloads that can utilize half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning or media processing tasks. Its lower TDP of 25 W is 3 W below the AMD part's 28 W, and its system shared memory model could simplify system design by eliminating a separate memory pool.

For applications that prioritize fixed memory capacity and high rasterization rates, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU presents a stronger specification profile. For applications that prioritize shading unit count, half-precision compute throughput, and platform integration through shared memory, the Intel Arc G3 presents a stronger specification profile. The database lacks benchmark scores to confirm how these specification differences translate into real-world performance, so these conclusions are drawn strictly from the recorded hardware characteristics.