AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 24EU Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and Intel Arc Graphics 24EU occupy entirely different segments of the graphics market, and the data confirms that the AMD part is the dominant performer. The Ryzen Z2 GPU sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU ranks at the 3rd percentile. This gap in percentile ranking translates into a massive performance disparity across every measured metric.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is for users who need a discrete-class graphics solution in a compact, power-efficient package. It delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than ten times the 768.0 GFLOPS offered by the Intel part. The Ryzen Z2 GPU also includes 12 RT cores, enabling hardware ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU specification. Its 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory with 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth makes it suitable for modern gaming workloads.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is an integrated graphics processor built into the Arrow Lake-S chip. It is designed for basic display output and light graphical tasks, not for gaming or content creation. Its 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs are a fraction of what the AMD part provides. The Intel part's only recorded benchmark score is 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it on par with the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU variants, which also score 733 points. It trades blows with the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points, 1.4% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751 points, 2.4% ahead).

For anyone building a system where graphics performance matters, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the clear choice. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU should be considered only for basic desktop use, office productivity, or media playback where its low power draw and integrated nature are sufficient.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Hawk Point chip, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Arrow Lake-S chip, manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. Both use TSMC as the foundry, but the newer 3 nm node gives Intel a density advantage in theory, though the actual transistor counts tell a different story.

The AMD chip packs 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 73.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two chips: the AMD Hawk Point is a full SoC with a robust GPU, while the Intel Arrow Lake-S is a CPU die with a small integrated GPU bolted on.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz. The AMD part's higher clocks contribute directly to its massive compute advantage.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the Intel part's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration, while the AMD part has fixed, dedicated bandwidth.

The AMD GPU includes 12 RT cores for hardware ray tracing, a feature the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU lacks entirely. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is identical. The AMD part also has a dedicated display output (1x USB Type-C), while the Intel part's display outputs are motherboard dependent.

Power consumption reflects their different roles. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W and requires no power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a TDP of 65 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) using the Ring Bus interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU delivers 768.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 10.8 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: Can the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU handle hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU specification lists no RT cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU includes 12 RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance ranking of each GPU in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU sits at the 3rd percentile, indicating it is slower than roughly 97% of all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 match the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU exactly (733 points, 0% delta). It is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points) and 2.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751 points).

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a 28 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a 65 W TDP and is an integrated part. Despite the Intel part drawing more power, the AMD part delivers far higher performance per watt.

Q: What process nodes do these GPUs use?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses TSMC's 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The following table highlights only the fields where the two parts differ.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU | Intel Arc Graphics 24EU |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Chip | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 73.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 119.9 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 937 MHz 7.5 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 768 | 192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 12 |

| ROPs | 32 | 6 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.294 TFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | Not specified | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2024-10-23 |

| Predecessor | None | HD Graphics |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 3 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 0 (no benchmarks recorded) | 733 |

The AMD part has 4 times the shading units, 4 times the TMUs, and more than 5 times the ROPs of the Intel part. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is 7.2 times higher than the Intel part's 12.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s is 5.4 times higher. The FP32 gap is even larger at roughly 10.8 times.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database between these two specific GPUs. However, the available data for the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the specification sheets for both parts allow for a clear performance comparison.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's only recorded benchmark is 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. This score places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and 64EU, both scoring exactly 733 points with a 0% delta, indicating that all three Intel integrated graphics variants perform identically in this test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723 points, putting the Intel part 1.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751 points, putting the Intel part 2.4% behind. These results show that the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU performs at a level comparable to mobile GPUs from roughly a decade earlier.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, but its specification sheet provides a basis for comparison. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is 10.8 times higher than the Intel part's 768.0 GFLOPS. Its 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is 7.2 times higher. Its 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate is 5.4 times higher. Its 119.9 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth stands in contrast to the Intel part's system dependent bandwidth, which is shared with the CPU and can be a bottleneck for graphics workloads.

The 50th percentile ranking of the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU versus the 3rd percentile ranking of the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU underscores the performance chasm. The AMD part sits in the middle of the entire GPU population, while the Intel part sits near the very bottom.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in every performance-oriented use case. Its 12 RT cores enable hardware ray tracing, a feature that the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU cannot offer. Its 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth supports modern game assets and textures without competing with the CPU for memory access. Its 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is sufficient for demanding 3D rendering, gaming, and compute workloads. The 28 W TDP means it delivers this performance in a power envelope that is actually lower than the Intel part's 65 W TDP despite being far faster.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins only in scenarios where its integrated nature is an advantage. It uses system shared memory, so no dedicated VRAM allocation is required. It is an IGP on the Ring Bus interface, meaning it is built into the Arrow Lake-S processor and requires no separate graphics card. Its display outputs are motherboard dependent, which simplifies system design for basic desktop PCs. The 3 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in theory, though the larger die size and lower transistor density suggest the chip is not optimized for graphics density.

For gaming, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the only viable option of the two. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 3rd percentile, which is insufficient for modern gaming at playable frame rates. For desktop productivity, office work, and media playback, the Intel part can handle basic tasks, but the AMD part does so with far more headroom.

For content creation, video editing, 3D modeling, or any GPU-accelerated compute work, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU's 10.8 times higher FP32 throughput and 5.4 times higher texture rate make it the clear choice. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's FP16 performance of 1.536 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is higher than its FP32 figure, but still far below the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS in either FP16 or FP32 mode.

The database percentile rankings summarize the situation: the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU at the 50th percentile is a mid-range performer, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU at the 3rd percentile is near the bottom of the entire GPU population. Users who need graphics performance should select the AMD part. Users who only need basic display output from an integrated solution may find the Intel part sufficient, but they should expect performance comparable to legacy mobile GPUs from a different era.