AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 32EU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two integrated graphics solutions into completely different performance tiers. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU occupies the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, placing it squarely in the middle of the distribution. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU sits at the 3rd percentile, meaning it trails the vast majority of recorded graphics hardware. The AMD part delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel part delivers 998.4 GFLOPS. That is an 8.3x gap in raw floating-point throughput, and it shows up across every measurable workload category.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in every scenario where pixel throughput matters. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s compares to 15.60 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, a 5.5x advantage in rasterization fill. Texture work shows a similar pattern, with the AMD part producing 129.6 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 4.2x difference. The Intel part has one single recorded benchmark, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 run scoring 733 points. The AMD part has zero recorded benchmark entries in the database, so direct score-to-score comparison is not possible from the recorded measurements. However, the architectural and clock data make the performance hierarchy unambiguous.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU does hold one advantage: power draw. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the AMD part's 28 W TDP, so it is not more efficient. The Intel part is a slot-width IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the AMD part uses a single USB Type-C output. For workloads that require a dedicated mobile console GPU with 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the only option in this pairing. The Intel part relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which introduces variable performance based on the host platform's memory configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS FP32, while Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers 998.4 GFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is approximately 8.3x higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part adds hardware ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How does the Intel part compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. It matches the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU at 733 points each, sits 1.4% ahead of AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points), and trails NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751 points) by 2.4%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU boosts to 2700 MHz with an 800 MHz base clock. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU boosts to 1950 MHz with a 300 MHz base clock. The AMD part's boost clock is 750 MHz higher.

Q: Are both chips built on the same process node?

A: No. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses TSMC's 4 nm process. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The Intel chip has a more advanced node but far lower performance metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs, and the AMD part has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has one recorded benchmark: 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. That score places it at the 3rd percentile overall, and its nearest rivals show how tightly packed this performance tier is. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU both score exactly 733, meaning the 32EU configuration provides no measurable advantage over the 24EU variant in this test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, 1.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, 2.4% ahead.

Without a recorded benchmark for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU, the comparison must lean on the computed specifications in the database. The FP32 throughput difference is the most striking: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS. That is not a marginal gap, it is a full performance class separation. The texture rate gap of 129.6 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s indicates the AMD part can feed shader work at more than four times the rate. The pixel rate gap of 86.40 GPixel/s versus 15.60 GPixel/s means rasterization-heavy workloads will finish roughly 5.5 times faster on the AMD part, all else being equal.

The Intel part's FP16 throughput of 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is higher than its FP32 figure, but still far below the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The AMD part does not rely on rate conversion to reach its FP16 number, it delivers the same throughput as FP32. The Intel part's 2:1 ratio means it achieves its FP16 figure by pairing FP32 lanes, which is a less efficient design for mixed-precision workloads.

The memory subsystem reinforces the performance gap. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X with 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory, so bandwidth is dependent on the host platform's memory configuration. A dedicated memory bus removes contention with CPU workloads and provides predictable bandwidth, while shared memory performance varies with the rest of the system.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has 12 ray tracing cores; the Intel part lists none. The AMD part uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The Intel part uses a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 73.3 million per mm². The Intel die is physically larger but contains fewer transistors, and its density is roughly half that of the AMD chip.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The AMD part runs at 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost. The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost. The AMD part's memory clock is 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective transfer, while the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared. Power draw is 28 W for AMD and 65 W for Intel. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while the AMD part has no bus interface listed. Display outputs are a single USB Type-C for AMD versus motherboard dependent for Intel. The AMD part has no power connectors listed; the Intel part also has no power connectors listed.

The AMD part is classified as a Console GPU in the Hawk Point chip family with RDNA 3.0 architecture. The Intel part is classified as Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) with Xe-LPG architecture. The Intel part's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, while the AMD part has no predecessor listed. Both are active production parts. The AMD part was released on 2024-12-31 and the Intel part on 2024-10-23, so the Intel part entered the database just over two months earlier. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses RDNA 3.0, a graphics architecture designed for dedicated console-class GPUs. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses Xe-LPG, the low-power variant of Intel's Arc graphics architecture integrated into Arrow Lake-S processors. The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel chip uses a 3 nm TSMC process. Despite the newer process, the Intel chip achieves lower performance because its shader count is one-third of the AMD part (256 versus 768) and its clock ceiling is lower (1950 MHz versus 2700 MHz).

The AMD part integrates 12 ray tracing cores, giving it hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability. The Intel part lists no ray tracing cores, so any ray tracing workload would fall back to compute shaders or be unsupported in hardware. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so the API surface is identical, but the hardware acceleration behind it differs.

Memory architecture is another major split. The AMD part uses 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus with fixed bandwidth of 119.9 GB/s. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This means the AMD part's memory performance is deterministic, while the Intel part's memory performance depends entirely on the host system's memory speed, channel configuration, and capacity. For a benchmark database, the AMD part's fixed memory behavior makes its performance reproducible across platforms, whereas the Intel part's results can shift with the host platform.

Transistor density tells a story about design priorities. The AMD chip packs 25,390 million transistors into 178 mm² for a density of 142.6 million per mm². The Intel chip spreads 17,800 million transistors across 243 mm² for 73.3 million per mm². The AMD design is much denser, which aligns with its higher shader count and dedicated memory controller. The Intel design uses more die area for fewer transistors, likely because the IGP shares the die with CPU cores and other system components on the Arrow Lake-S package.

The FP16 implementation differs as well. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning its FP16 and FP32 throughput are identical. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU delivers 1.997 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate, a sign that it packs pairs of FP32 lanes for FP16 work. This gives the Intel part a theoretical FP16 advantage over its own FP32 rate, but the absolute numbers remain far below the AMD part.

The Verdict

The database positions these two GPUs in different performance classes entirely. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU sits at the 50th percentile of all recorded GPUs, while Intel Arc Graphics 32EU sits at the 3rd percentile. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Intel part. Every compute metric favors the AMD part by a factor of four or more: FP32 is 8.3x higher, pixel rate is 5.5x higher, texture rate is 4.2x higher.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU's only recorded benchmark, 733 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, puts it in company with decade-old discrete mobile GPUs like the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (723 points, 1.4% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (751 points, 2.4% ahead). Its identical score to the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU suggests the 32EU configuration does not translate into measurable gains in that specific test. The 3rd percentile placement confirms this is an entry-level integrated solution.

For workloads that need ray tracing hardware, the AMD part provides 12 dedicated RT cores while the Intel part offers none. For workloads that need consistent memory bandwidth, the AMD part's 119.9 GB/s dedicated LPDDR5X is fixed and predictable, while the Intel part's system shared memory bandwidth is system dependent. For workloads that need FP32 or FP16 throughput, the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS in both precisions dwarfs the Intel part's 998.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 1.997 TFLOPS FP16.

The Intel part does have one clear advantage in the recorded data: its 3 nm process node is newer than the AMD part's 4 nm node. But the newer node does not compensate for the lower shader count, lower clocks, and shared memory architecture. The 65 W TDP of the Intel part is higher than the AMD part's 28 W TDP, so the AMD part delivers more performance at less than half the power envelope.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward. AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the choice for any workload that demands graphics throughput, ray tracing, or fixed memory bandwidth. Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is the choice only for systems that require an integrated GPU on the Arrow Lake-S platform with no add-in card and no dedicated console GPU. The 50th versus 3rd percentile placement summarizes the hierarchy: the AMD part is a mid-tier GPU, the Intel part is a low-tier IGP.