AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc G3 Extreme Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU against the Intel Arc G3 Extreme. Both entries have an empty headToHeadBenchmarks array, and the winsA and winsB counters are both zero. Without timed benchmark runs, the comparison must rest entirely on the architectural specifications and throughput numbers provided in the database.

What the data does show is a close contest in raw compute. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part roughly 8% ahead in single-precision floating-point work. The margin is slim, but it is consistent across the pixel and texture pipelines. The Ryzen Z2 GPU reaches 86.40 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate, against 60.00 GPixel/s for the Arc G3 Extreme, a 44% advantage. In texture rate, the AMD part posts 129.6 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, a margin of 8%.

The Intel part fights back in half-precision compute. Its FP16 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS, achieved through a 2:1 ratio where each FP32 unit also performs two FP16 operations. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU manages 8.294 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double up. For workloads that use FP16 math, the Intel Arc G3 Extreme is 85% faster than the AMD part. That is the single largest performance gap in either direction.

Clock speeds also differ meaningfully. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme runs much lower at a 300 MHz base, but boosts to 2500 MHz. The AMD part sustains a higher boost clock, which helps explain its lead in pixel rate despite having fewer ROPs per clock in some respects. The Intel part compensates with a wider shader array, 1536 shading units against 768, exactly double. That doubling does not translate into double FP32 throughput because the Intel architecture appears to clock lower and use a different execution structure.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, built on the Hawk Point chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. It belongs to the Console GPU generation for AMD. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses a 3 nm process at Intel, built on the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Panther Lake.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only known for one side. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme lists its transistor count and die size as unknown, so no direct comparison of integration density is possible from the database.

Memory architecture differs completely. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a dedicated 16 GB pool of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, with 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 937 MHz, 7.5 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses system shared memory, with the bus width, bandwidth, and memory type all listed as system dependent. That means the Intel part's memory performance is tied to the host platform, not fixed by the GPU itself.

The shader arrays differ in size and composition. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The TMU count is identical at 48. The RT core count is identical at 12. The ROP count favors AMD at 32 versus 24, which aligns with its higher pixel rate.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W and uses no power connectors. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has a TDP of 80 W and also uses no power connectors, but it is classified as an IGP, meaning it draws power through the host processor's socket rather than a dedicated connector. The slot width for the Intel part is IGP, while the AMD part has no slot width listed.

Display outputs differ as well. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU provides one USB Type-C display output. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the host device. Neither part lists a dedicated bus interface for the AMD side, while the Intel part lists IGP.

API support is identical. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The feature set for modern graphics APIs is therefore equivalent on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. The AMD part is approximately 8% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 performance?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part is approximately 85% faster in half-precision workloads.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X memory pool on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses system shared memory, with bandwidth and bus width dependent on the host system.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has a TDP of 80 W. Both use no dedicated power connectors, though the Intel part is an IGP.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc G3 Extreme have 12 ray tracing cores each.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses a 3 nm process at Intel.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the Intel Arc G3 Extreme:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel
• Chip: Hawk Point versus Panther Lake
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Console GPU (AMD) versus Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 25,390 million versus unknown
• Die Size: 178 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor Density: 142.6M / mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 800 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2700 MHz versus 2500 MHz
• Memory Clock: 937 MHz 7.5 Gbps effective versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 16 GB versus System Shared
• Memory Type: LPDDR5X versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 119.9 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 768 versus 1536
• ROPs: 32 versus 24
• Pixel Rate: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 28 W versus 80 W
• Slot Width: null versus IGP
• Bus Interface: null versus IGP
• Display Outputs: 1x USB Type-C versus Portable Device Dependent
• Release Date: 2024-12-31 versus 2026-05-31

Fields that are identical include the TMU count at 48, the RT core count at 12, the API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), the power connectors (none), the production status (active), and the percentile versus all GPUs at 50.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in several fixed-function and rasterization metrics. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is 44% higher than the Intel part's 60.00 GPixel/s, indicating stronger fill-rate-bound rasterization work. Its texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s edges out the Intel part's 120.0 GTexel/s. It also has a higher boost clock at 2700 MHz versus 2500 MHz, and a dedicated 16 GB memory pool with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth, which removes dependence on host memory performance. The lower TDP of 28 W versus 80 W indicates it fits into a more constrained power envelope.

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme wins in shader count and half-precision compute. Its 1536 shading units double the AMD part's 768, and its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS is 85% higher than the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS. The 2:1 FP16 ratio means it can process half-precision data at twice the rate of FP32, which suits machine learning inference, certain image processing, and workloads that tolerate reduced precision. Its 3 nm process node is one step ahead of the AMD part's 4 nm node, though the Intel part does not disclose transistor count or die size.

The Intel part also holds an advantage in memory flexibility. Because it uses system shared memory, it can access whatever capacity the host provides, rather than being limited to a fixed 16 GB pool. The tradeoff is that bandwidth becomes system dependent, so the actual performance cannot be stated in the database.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs aimed at different operating points. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the higher-throughput rasterizer. It leads in FP32 compute by 8%, in pixel rate by 44%, and in texture rate by 8%. Its fixed 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus provides a predictable 119.9 GB/s, and its 28 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power platforms. The higher boost clock of 2700 MHz and lower power draw indicate an efficient design for sustained graphics work.

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme is the higher-throughput compute engine for half-precision tasks. Its 1536 shading units and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 throughput make it the stronger choice for workloads that use FP16 math, where it leads by 85%. Its system shared memory model offers capacity flexibility, though bandwidth is not guaranteed. The 80 W TDP is nearly three times the AMD part's, and the boost clock is 200 MHz lower.

The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, meaning neither part is positioned above the other in the overall database ranking. The production status for both is active, and both support the same modern graphics APIs. The AMD part released on 2024-12-31, while the Intel part is dated 2026-05-31, a later entry.

For rasterization-bound graphics, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has the measurable edge in every fixed-function throughput metric. For FP16-heavy compute or flexible memory capacity, the Intel Arc G3 Extreme has the clear advantage in shader count and half-precision throughput. The choice depends on which workload profile matters more. The data does not indicate a universal winner, only a split decision across different metrics.