AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile represent two distinct approaches to integrated graphics, one built for high-throughput console-style gaming and the other for ultra-low-power mobile efficiency. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark matches between these two parts, so the analysis below relies entirely on their measured specifications and computed throughput values to establish relative performance tiers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no entry with both GPUs present in a common benchmark session. This absence of overlapping scores means the comparison must be constructed from the recorded fill rates, shader counts, and floating-point outputs, which are consistent across all database entries.

The most decisive gap is in raw pixel throughput. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU records a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, which is 4.32 times the 20.00 GPixel/s of the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. That ratio holds for any resolution, since both values are measured in the same units and neither is dependent on memory bandwidth in the database. A 4.32x advantage in pixel fill is substantial for any workload that writes to a framebuffer, from 2D UI compositing to 3D rasterization.

Texture rate shows a similar, though slightly smaller, gap. AMD delivers 129.6 GTexel/s against Intel's 40.00 GTexel/s, a 3.24x difference. This is driven by the combination of 48 texture mapping units versus 16, and a boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 2500 MHz. The AMD part also runs a base clock of 800 MHz, while Intel idles at 300 MHz, which affects sustained performance under thermal load.

Floating-point compute splits the two more unevenly. AMD's FP32 output is 8.294 TFLOPS, which is 6.48 times Intel's 1,280.0 GFLOPS (1.28 TFLOPS). The FP16 comparison flips the ratio: AMD runs FP16 at 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. That means AMD's FP16 advantage is only 3.24x, not the 6.48x seen in FP32. For workloads that use FP16 specifically, such as certain machine learning inference paths, Intel's narrower gap is notable, though it still trails by more than three times.

Memory bandwidth is another categorical win for AMD. The Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X pool over a 128-bit bus, achieving 119.9 GB/s. Intel's part uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, so no comparable figure exists. The database treats this as an architectural difference rather than a measured score, but the practical implication is that AMD's memory subsystem is purpose-built for graphics throughput while Intel's depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins every computed throughput category in the database. The pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and FP16 figures all favor AMD, and the margin ranges from 3.24x (FP16 and texture rate) to 6.48x (FP32) to 4.32x (pixel rate). The 768 shading units versus 256, 48 TMUs versus 16, and 32 ROPs versus 8 all feed these results. Additionally, AMD has 12 ray tracing cores against Intel's 2, which gives it a 6x advantage in that specific hardware block count.

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in process node and power efficiency. The 3 nm Intel foundry process versus AMD's 4 nm TSMC node is a manufacturing difference, not a benchmark score, but it directly supports Intel's lower 25 W TDP against AMD's 28 W. That 3 W gap is small in absolute terms, but the Intel part achieves its results with one-third the shading units, one-third the TMUs, one-quarter the ROPs, and one-sixth the ray tracing cores. The efficiency per shader is therefore much higher on Intel, even though the absolute output is far lower.

Intel also holds an advantage in FP16 scaling. The 2:1 FP16 ratio means Intel gets twice its FP32 throughput when switching to half precision, while AMD's 1:1 ratio gives no such boost. This is a targeted win for any workload that can use FP16 accumulators, but the absolute FP16 number still trails AMD by 3.24x.

The release timeline also differs. AMD's part is dated 2024-12-31, while Intel's is dated 2026-04-15, so Intel's entry is roughly 15 months later in the database. This does not affect performance, but it does explain why the Intel part uses a newer process and architecture.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the dominant part for any graphics workload that demands absolute throughput. The 6.48x FP32 advantage, 4.32x pixel rate advantage, and 3.24x texture rate advantage make it the only choice for gaming, 3D rendering, or any compute task that saturates shader units. The 16 GB dedicated memory pool with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth further isolates it from system memory contention, which is critical for sustained frame rendering.

Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is the part to select when power envelope and physical integration matter more than raw output. Its 25 W TDP, 3 nm process, and IGP slot width indicate a design meant for compact, fanless or low-profile portable devices. The System Shared memory and System Dependent bandwidth confirm that Intel expects to ride on the host's existing memory rather than carry its own. For a device that needs basic 2D acceleration, video decode, and light 3D at minimal power draw, the Intel part is the sensible pick.

Neither part shows a benchmark score in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. This percentile is a neutral placement, not a performance claim, and it does not resolve which one is better for a given user. The specification data alone supports AMD for performance and Intel for efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 throughput?

A: AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU records 8.294 TFLOPS, which is 6.48 times Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile's 1,280.0 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the pixel fill rates compare?

A: AMD achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, 4.32 times the 20.00 GPixel/s of the Intel part.

Q: Does Intel have any advantage in compute?

A: Intel's FP16 ratio is 2:1 versus AMD's 1:1, so Intel doubles its FP32 output when using FP16, reaching 2.560 TFLOPS. AMD still leads in absolute FP16 at 8.294 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do the two use?

A: AMD uses a dedicated 16 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the TDPs differ?

A: AMD is rated at 28 W, while Intel is rated at 25 W, a 3 W difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Which has more ray tracing cores?

A: AMD has 12 ray tracing cores, while Intel has 2, a 6x difference in hardware count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a Hawk Point chip, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a Wildcat Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process with transistor count and die size listed as unknown in the database.

AMD's architecture is designed for high shader throughput. The 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs are organized for parallel rasterization, and the 12 RT cores add dedicated ray tracing hardware. Intel's Xe3-LPG scales down to 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 2 RT cores, which reflects a design goal of minimum silicon area and power draw.

The memory architecture diverges completely. AMD integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5X directly on the package, using a 128-bit bus at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective speed, yielding 119.9 GB/s. Intel shares system memory entirely, with no dedicated graphics memory pool and bandwidth that the database lists as System Dependent. This means AMD's memory latency and bandwidth are fixed and predictable, while Intel's vary with the host platform.

Clock behavior also differs. AMD runs a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz, a 3.375x boost range. Intel runs a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, an 8.333x range. The wider boost range on Intel suggests a design that can idle very low and ramp up when needed, while AMD's smaller range implies a more constant high-performance state.

FP16 execution is another architectural split. AMD uses a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning the same hardware processes both at identical rates. Intel uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling FP16 throughput relative to FP32. This is a deliberate choice for efficiency in half-precision workloads, but it does not overcome AMD's raw shader count advantage.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in every measurable specification field in the database.

Process node: AMD at 4 nm TSMC, Intel at 3 nm Intel.

Transistors: AMD at 25,390 million, Intel unknown.

Die size: AMD at 178 mm², Intel unknown.

Transistor density: AMD at 142.6M per mm², Intel not recorded.

Base clock: AMD at 800 MHz, Intel at 300 MHz.

Boost clock: AMD at 2700 MHz, Intel at 2500 MHz.

Memory clock: AMD at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, Intel at System Shared.

Memory size: AMD at 16 GB, Intel at System Shared.

Memory type: AMD at LPDDR5X, Intel at System Shared.

Bus width: AMD at 128 bit, Intel at System Shared.

Bandwidth: AMD at 119.9 GB/s, Intel at System Dependent.

Shading units: AMD at 768, Intel at 256.

TMUs: AMD at 48, Intel at 16.

ROPs: AMD at 32, Intel at 8.

RT cores: AMD at 12, Intel at 2.

Pixel rate: AMD at 86.40 GPixel/s, Intel at 20.00 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: AMD at 129.6 GTexel/s, Intel at 40.00 GTexel/s.

FP32: AMD at 8.294 TFLOPS, Intel at 1,280.0 GFLOPS.

FP16: AMD at 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1), Intel at 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: AMD at 28 W, Intel at 25 W.

Slot width: AMD not recorded, Intel at IGP.

Bus interface: AMD not recorded, Intel at IGP.

Display outputs: AMD at 1x USB Type-C, Intel at Portable Device Dependent.

Release date: AMD at 2024-12-31, Intel at 2026-04-15.

Predecessor: AMD has none listed, Intel lists HD Graphics-M.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are marked Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.