AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile graphics solutions cleanly by role. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is a dedicated-class console-oriented part, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an integrated graphics processor embedded in a Panther Lake mobile chip. Neither part has a benchmark win in the head-to-head table, as the database contains no recorded test results for either unit. The wins are therefore structural, not performance-derived.

The AMD side wins on raw compute scaling. It delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is more than triple the Intel part's 2.355 TFLOPS. That gap appears in every compute-heavy workload category: shading, texturing, pixel output, and ray tracing. The AMD unit also carries 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, giving it 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which means its available bandwidth varies with the host platform.

The Intel side wins on integration and power envelope. At 25 W TDP, it sits slightly below the AMD part's 28 W, and it requires no separate memory chips, no board space for VRM components, and no additional cooling beyond what the host laptop already provides. Its base clock of 300 MHz is also far lower than the AMD's 800 MHz, which allows the Intel part to idle more conservatively. For thin-and-light systems where every milliwatt and every square millimeter matters, the Intel integrated solution is the only one that fits.

The AMD part wins on memory capacity and determinism. Dedicated 16 GB of LPDDR5X means the GPU never competes with the CPU for memory resources. The Intel part's shared-memory model makes its performance dependent on the system's RAM configuration, capacity, and speed. In a fixed benchmark environment, the AMD unit's 119.9 GB/s is a guaranteed constant, whereas the Intel unit's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent" with no fixed number.

The Intel part wins on process technology. It is built on a 3 nm node at Intel's foundry, while the AMD part uses TSMC's 4 nm process. The smaller node gives the Intel part a density advantage in principle, although the database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for the Intel chip, listing both as "unknown." The AMD part's die is 178 mm² with 25,390 million transistors, yielding a density of 142.6M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses RDNA 3.0, built on the Hawk Point chip. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses Xe3-LPG, built on the Panther Lake chip. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, as one is a discrete-style GPU (though integrated into a console-oriented package) and the other is a pure IGP.

Execution resources differ substantially. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the AMD unit has 50% more shaders, 50% more TMUs, and twice the ROP count. These ratios track directly into the pixel and texture rate figures: the AMD part produces 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s, while the Intel part produces 36.80 GPixel/s and 73.60 GTexel/s.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The AMD part carries 12 RT cores, the Intel part has 4. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API surface is identical. The gap in RT core count suggests the AMD unit is better prepared for ray-traced workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this.

Clock behavior is a major architectural differentiator. The AMD part runs at a base of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz, a 3.375x multiplier. The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost, a 7.67x multiplier. The Intel part's much wider boost range indicates a power-management strategy that aggressively ramps clocks when thermal headroom allows, while the AMD part stays closer to a fixed performance envelope.

FP16 support differs in ratio. The AMD part achieves 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not double-rate half-precision work. The Intel part achieves 4.710 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process two FP16 operations per FP32 cycle. For workloads that use FP16 (some AI inference, certain graphics effects), the Intel part's relative FP16 throughput is higher than its FP32 number suggests, though its absolute FP16 still trails the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is the most fundamental split. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective), producing 119.9 GB/s. The Intel part has no dedicated memory; its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." The AMD part's dedicated memory ensures predictable performance, while the Intel part's performance scales with the host system's memory configuration.

The AMD part is built on a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6M transistors per square millimeter. The Intel part is built on Intel's 3 nm process, but its transistor count and die size are unknown in the database. The Intel part's IGP classification means it shares the Panther Lake CPU die, so its physical footprint is not a standalone GPU package.

Display output also differs. The AMD part lists a single USB Type-C output. The Intel part lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning the display connections are determined by the laptop manufacturer. Neither part supports external power connectors; both draw power from their host boards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts. The head-to-head table is empty, and the win counters for both sides are zero. This is not a case of one part dominating the other; it is a case where no comparative test data exists. The percentile ranks are identical: both sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero.

Without benchmark numbers, the analysis must rely on the recorded specification differences. The FP32 compute ratio is the clearest signal: the AMD part delivers 8.294 TFLOPS versus the Intel part's 2.355 TFLOPS. That is a 3.52x advantage for AMD. In FP16, the AMD part delivers 8.294 TFLOPS versus the Intel part's 4.710 TFLOPS, a 1.76x advantage. The Intel part's FP16 advantage relative to its own FP32 (2:1 ratio) closes the gap but does not overcome it.

Pixel throughput shows a 2.35x AMD advantage: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s. Texture throughput shows a 1.76x AMD advantage: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. These ratios align with the execution resource counts. The AMD part's 768 shaders versus 512 is a 1.5x ratio, but its higher boost clock (2700 MHz versus 2300 MHz) compounds the advantage, producing the larger FP32 gap.

Ray tracing hardware shows a 3x AMD advantage in RT core count: 12 versus 4. No RT benchmark exists to quantify the real-world impact, but the hardware allocation strongly favors AMD.

Memory bandwidth is a 119.9 GB/s fixed number for AMD versus "System Dependent" for Intel. In a best-case scenario, a high-end laptop with dual-channel LPDDR5X could approach or exceed that bandwidth, but the database does not record any such configuration. In a typical laptop, shared memory bandwidth is lower than dedicated GPU memory bandwidth because the CPU and GPU compete for the same channels.

Clock behavior favors Intel in terms of efficiency range. The Intel part's 300 MHz base clock is 2.67x lower than the AMD's 800 MHz, which suggests the Intel part can drop to a much lower power state when idle. The boost clocks are closer: 2300 MHz versus 2700 MHz, a 1.17x AMD advantage. The Intel part's 7.67x boost ratio indicates it has more headroom to ramp up under load.

The TDP figures are close: 28 W for AMD versus 25 W for Intel. The AMD part delivers its higher performance within a modest 12% power premium. The Intel part's lower TDP, combined with its integrated nature, makes it suitable for smaller form factors.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 3.5x faster in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel part support faster half-precision math?

A: Yes. The Intel part achieves 4.710 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes two FP16 operations per FP32 cycle. The AMD part has a 1:1 ratio, delivering 8.294 TFLOPS FP16, which equals its FP32 figure.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD part has 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so its memory capacity and speed depend on the host laptop.

Q: Which part has more ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD part has 12 RT cores, while the Intel part has 4 RT cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so the API feature set is identical.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD part is built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel part is built on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, while the AMD part has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die.

Q: Can the Intel part be used as a standalone GPU?

A: No. The Intel part is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP" and a bus interface of "IGP." It has no power connectors and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The AMD part also has no power connectors, but it has a dedicated 16 GB memory pool and a single USB Type-C display output.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. For applications that demand raw graphics throughput, dedicated memory, and predictable bandwidth, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger choice. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32, 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate, 12 RT cores, and 119.9 GB/s dedicated bandwidth all point to a part designed for sustained gaming or compute workloads. The 16 GB LPDDR5X pool removes memory contention entirely.

For thin-and-light mobile systems where the GPU must share the motherboard with a CPU, the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the only viable option. Its 25 W TDP, 300 MHz base clock, and IGP classification mean it can be embedded directly into a Panther Lake processor without additional board space. The 3 nm process gives it a density advantage in principle, and its 2:1 FP16 ratio provides relative efficiency for half-precision workloads. Its 4.710 TFLOPS FP16 output is still below the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS, but the Intel part consumes less power and requires no dedicated memory components.

The 50th percentile ranking for both parts in the database reflects the absence of benchmark data, not a performance tie. The specification sheet shows a 3.52x FP32 gap, a 2.35x pixel-rate gap, and a 1.76x texture-rate gap, all favoring AMD. The Intel part's only clear advantages are its lower TDP, lower base clock, and integrated form factor.

A system builder choosing between them is not choosing between two comparable GPUs. The AMD part is a console-oriented GPU with a fixed memory pool and a single display output. The Intel part is an integrated graphics solution whose performance depends entirely on the host system's memory. The AMD part suits a dedicated handheld or console-like device; the Intel part suits a standard laptop where the GPU is a secondary consideration.

Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing comparison is possible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Xe3-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 2300 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) | N/A |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 36.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 73.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.294 TFLOPS | 2.355 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 25 W |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | N/A |

| Slot Width | N/A | IGP |

| Bus Interface | N/A | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2026-01-26 |