AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU or the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Both entries show empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and zero recorded wins in head-to-head comparisons. The percentile versus all GPUs is set at 50 for both parts, indicating the database does not currently differentiate them through measured performance results.

Without numeric benchmark results, the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification data provided. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers a computed FP32 throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile reaches 1.792 TFLOPS. This places the AMD part at roughly 4.6 times the raw floating-point output of the Intel part, a substantial margin in theoretical compute capacity. The FP16 figures further separate them: AMD lists 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel lists 3.584 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part maintains its FP16 output equal to its FP32, whereas the Intel part doubles its throughput in FP16, yet still falls well short of the AMD numbers.

Pixel throughput shows AMD at 86.40 GPixel/s versus Intel at 28.00 GPixel/s, a 3.1 times advantage for the AMD part. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: AMD reaches 129.6 GTexel/s, while Intel reaches 56.00 GTexel/s, giving AMD a 2.3 times lead. These figures describe the peak rasterization and texture-fetch capabilities, not actual application performance, but they establish the relative hardware limits of each design.

Clock behavior also differs strongly. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile runs at a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1750 MHz. The AMD part holds a 500 MHz higher base clock and a 950 MHz higher boost clock. Higher clocks contribute directly to the throughput gaps observed in the computed rates, though architecture differences also play a role.

Memory configuration separates the two completely. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU integrates 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 119.9 GB/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance scales with the host platform rather than a dedicated integrated memory subsystem. The AMD part has a fixed, known bandwidth figure; the Intel part has no fixed figure in the database.

The TDP envelope differs substantially. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is rated at 28 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is rated at 65 W. This means the AMD part delivers its higher theoretical throughput figures within a 37 W lower power envelope, a notable efficiency gap in the recorded specifications. The Intel part, despite consuming more power, shows lower peak rates across FP32, FP16, pixel fill, and texture fill.

The process nodes also differ. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD chip, named Hawk Point, integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel chip, named Meteor Lake, has no transistor count, die size, or density figures recorded in the database. The architectural generation differs as well: AMD uses RDNA 3.0, while Intel uses Xe-LPG.

The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing core count. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every unit count favors the AMD part: 256 more shading units, 16 more TMUs, and 16 more ROPs.

The production status for both is Active. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU carries a release date of 2024-12-31, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile carries a release date of 2023-12-13. The Intel part has a recorded predecessor, HD Graphics-M, whereas the AMD part has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a successor listed. No launch MSRP is recorded for either part.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear hardware hierarchy between these two mobile graphics solutions. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU exceeds the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile in every recorded compute metric: FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, shading unit count, TMU count, ROP count, and clock speeds. The AMD part also carries dedicated memory, a higher DirectX feature level, ray tracing cores, and a lower TDP. The Intel part holds only a higher TDP and an earlier release date, neither of which indicates a performance advantage.

A user selecting between these two parts on the recorded specifications alone would find the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU the stronger option in raw throughput and feature support. The 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 figure versus 1.792 TFLOPS represents a 4.6 times gap in peak compute. The 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 28.00 GPixel/s represents a 3.1 times gap in fill rate. The 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate versus 56.00 GTexel/s represents a 2.3 times gap in texture throughput. These margins are large enough that no plausible software optimization on the Intel side would close them entirely, given the underlying hardware limits.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile does present a different memory model. Its system shared memory means the host system's memory bandwidth determines performance, which can vary widely across platforms. The AMD part's fixed 119.9 GB/s bandwidth provides a consistent baseline. For applications sensitive to memory latency or bandwidth, the AMD part offers a known quantity, whereas the Intel part depends entirely on the surrounding platform.

The TDP difference adds another layer. The AMD part achieves higher theoretical performance at 28 W, while the Intel part draws 65 W. In a mobile context, lower power consumption typically translates to longer battery life and easier thermal management, though the database does not record battery or thermal test results. The recorded specifications alone favor the AMD part on efficiency as well as performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in peak compute workloads. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 make it the stronger choice for any application that scales with raw shader throughput, such as general-purpose GPU compute or high-detail rendering. The 12 ray tracing cores give it a hardware path for ray-traced effects, while the Intel part lists no ray tracing cores at all. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support enables feature sets that the Intel part's DirectX 12 (12_1) cannot match, including newer DXR and mesh shader functionality.

The AMD part also wins in memory-constrained scenarios. The 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth provides a dedicated pool that does not compete with the CPU for system memory. The Intel part's system shared memory means the GPU and CPU share the same memory pool, which can create contention under load. For workloads that allocate large textures or datasets, the AMD part's fixed 16 GB capacity is a concrete advantage.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile does not win any recorded specification category. Its 65 W TDP is higher, which is not a benefit. Its 300 MHz base clock and 1750 MHz boost clock are lower. Its 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are all lower. Its FP32, FP16, pixel rate, and texture rate are all lower. Its DirectX feature level is lower. Its lack of ray tracing cores puts it behind in that feature set. The only areas where the Intel part differs without a clear disadvantage are its system shared memory model, which is platform dependent, and its earlier release date, which has no bearing on performance.

The use-case split from the recorded data is therefore one-sided. For gaming, 3D rendering, GPU compute, or any workload that stresses the graphics pipeline, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU holds every measurable advantage. The Intel part would only make sense in a platform that already integrates it and where the lower absolute performance is acceptable, but the database does not provide any metric where the Intel part leads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU records 8.294 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile records 1.792 TFLOPS, giving AMD a 4.6 times advantage in peak floating-point throughput.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile support ray tracing?

A: The database lists no ray tracing cores for the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU lists 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is rated at 28 W TDP. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is rated at 65 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has an 800 MHz base clock and a 2700 MHz boost clock. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a 300 MHz base clock and a 1750 MHz boost clock.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip built on Xe-LPG architecture. AMD fabricates its chip on a 4 nm process at TSMC, integrating 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, with a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel fabricates its chip on a 10 nm process at its own foundry, with no transistor count, die size, or density recorded in the database.

The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU (AMD) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The Intel part has a predecessor in HD Graphics-M, while the AMD part has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a successor listed.

The AMD part includes 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel part includes 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing core count recorded. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference is the only API divergence between the two.

The AMD part uses a 128 bit memory bus with dedicated LPDDR5X memory. The Intel part uses a ring bus interface and system shared memory, making its memory behavior dependent on the host platform. The AMD part's display output is listed as 1x USB Type-C, while the Intel part's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The AMD part has no slot width recorded and no power connectors, drawing its 28 W through the socket. The Intel part is listed as an IGP with no power connectors recorded, drawing its 65 W through the host platform. The AMD part's memory clock is 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

The FP16 behavior differs by design. The AMD part lists FP16 at 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The Intel part lists FP16 at 3.584 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it doubles its rate when operating in FP16. Despite this doubling, the Intel part's FP16 output remains less than half of the AMD part's FP16 output.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD part uses a 4 nm process from TSMC; the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD chip integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die; the Intel chip has no transistor or die size data recorded. The AMD part's transistor density is 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter; no density is recorded for the Intel part.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz. The AMD memory clock is 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, while the Intel memory clock is system shared.

Memory specifications diverge completely. The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ across the board. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores recorded. Pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD versus 28.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD versus 56.00 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 is 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD versus 1.792 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 is 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD versus 3.584 TFLOPS for Intel.

TDP is 28 W for the AMD part and 65 W for the Intel part. The AMD part lists no slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU. The Intel part lists a slot width of IGP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is not recorded for the AMD part, while the Intel part uses a ring bus. Display outputs are 1x USB Type-C for AMD and portable device dependent for Intel.

The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is Active for both. Release dates differ: the AMD part was released on 2024-12-31, and the Intel part on 2023-12-13. The Intel part has a predecessor, HD Graphics-M; the AMD part has none. No launch MSRP is recorded for either part.