AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and Intel Arc Pro B370 are both active mobile graphics solutions with distinct architectures, process nodes, and performance profiles. The Ryzen Z2 GPU, built on TSMC’s 4 nm process with RDNA 3.0 architecture, targets console-style handhelds, while the Arc Pro B370, fabricated on Intel’s 3 nm node with Xe3-LPG architecture, is an integrated graphics processor for Panther Lake-based portable devices. Both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons, so the analysis below relies entirely on their listed specifications and feature sets.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors designed for different deployment scenarios. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is a discrete-class part with 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. This makes it suitable for workloads that require consistent, local memory access, such as gaming or graphics rendering on a handheld console. Its 28 W TDP is slightly higher than the Intel part’s 25 W, but it offers a dedicated memory subsystem that does not compete with the system RAM.

The Intel Arc Pro B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor with system-shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent. It uses 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, compared to the Ryzen’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has a higher shading unit count, but the AMD part has more ROPs and TMUs, which can influence fill-rate-bound tasks. The Arc Pro B370 also provides a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 12.29 TFLOPS of half-precision compute versus 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU offers a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 8.294 TFLOPS.

Given the data, the Ryzen Z2 GPU is the better choice for applications that need dedicated memory and higher pixel throughput, such as gaming on a fixed-resolution handheld display. The Arc Pro B370 is more appropriate for portable devices where power efficiency and integration matter, and where the host system’s memory bandwidth is sufficient for the workload. The Intel part’s higher shading unit count may benefit compute-heavy tasks that use FP16 arithmetic, but its lower ROP count and system-shared memory limit its raw rasterization throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge at the architectural level. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its chip is codenamed Hawk Point and contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates with a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, with memory clocked at 937 MHz, effectively 7.5 Gbps. Its memory interface is 128-bit wide, supporting 16 GB of LPDDR5X, which provides 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The part includes 12 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and is classified as a Console GPU in the AMD generation lineup.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the newer Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Its chip is codenamed Panther Lake, and it belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. The process node is smaller than AMD’s, but the transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible. The base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. Memory is system shared, meaning the size, type, bus width, and bandwidth depend on the host system. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. It supports the same API set as the AMD part: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-WM, and it is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP bus interface and no power connectors.

Key differences include the memory architecture, where the AMD part uses dedicated LPDDR5X versus system-shared memory on Intel, and the process node, where Intel uses a smaller 3 nm node. The AMD part has a higher transistor count and die size, but the Intel part has more shading units. The AMD part’s boost clock is 2700 MHz, 300 MHz higher than the Intel part’s 2400 MHz, but the Intel part’s base clock is much lower at 300 MHz. Both use 12 Ultimate APIs and have similar TDPs (28 W vs. 25 W).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in scenarios that demand dedicated memory bandwidth and high rasterization throughput. Its 119.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth is fixed and independent of the host system, which is critical for texture streaming and frame buffer operations in gaming. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is significantly higher than the Intel part’s 48.00 GPixel/s, indicating faster fill-rate performance for 2D and 3D rendering. The texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s also exceeds the Intel part’s 96.00 GTexel/s, which helps in texture-heavy scenes. With 32 ROPs versus 20, the AMD part can resolve more pixels per clock, making it stronger for high-resolution displays or multi-sample anti-aliasing.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in compute-oriented workloads that leverage FP16 arithmetic. Its FP16 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS is nearly 50% higher than the AMD part’s 8.294 TFLOPS, thanks to a 2:1 FP16 ratio. This could benefit machine learning inference, image processing, or other half-precision compute tasks. The Intel part also has 1280 shading units, which is 512 more than the AMD part, potentially giving it an advantage in shader-heavy workloads that are not limited by memory bandwidth. Its lower TDP of 25 W versus 28 W makes it more power-efficient in absolute terms, which is relevant for thermally constrained portable devices. The Intel part’s smaller 3 nm process may also indicate better power efficiency per transistor, though the data does not provide a direct comparison.

For gaming, the AMD part’s dedicated memory and higher pixel rate are likely more beneficial. For compute tasks that use FP16, the Intel part’s higher shading unit count and FP16 throughput are advantageous. The AMD part’s 12 ray tracing cores support hardware ray tracing, and the Intel part has 10, so both can handle RT workloads, but the AMD part has more RT cores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768 shading units.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system-shared memory, where size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are system dependent.

Q: What are the FP32 and FP16 compute figures for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s, compared to the Intel Arc Pro B370’s 48.00 GPixel/s.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 12 ray tracing cores, and the Intel Arc Pro B370 has 10 ray tracing cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

While no recorded benchmark scores exist for either GPU, the specification data provides clear deltas in several performance metrics. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU leads in pixel rate, offering 86.40 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a margin of 38.40 GPixel/s. This indicates the AMD part can fill frames significantly faster, which is crucial for high-refresh-rate gaming or rendering at high resolutions.

In texture rate, the AMD part again leads with 129.6 GTexel/s against the Intel part’s 96.00 GTexel/s, a 33.6 GTexel/s advantage. This suggests better performance in texture-heavy scenes, where the GPU must sample and filter many texels per pixel. The AMD part’s higher ROP count (32 vs. 20) supports its pixel rate advantage.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 counters in FP16 compute, delivering 12.29 TFLOPS versus the AMD part’s 8.294 TFLOPS, a lead of 3.996 TFLOPS. This makes the Intel part better suited for half-precision workloads, such as certain AI inference or image processing tasks. However, in FP32, the AMD part leads with 8.294 TFLOPS against 6.144 TFLOPS, a 2.15 TFLOPS advantage, which is relevant for general-purpose shader computation.

Clock speeds differ as well. The AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz, while the Intel part boosts to 2400 MHz, a 300 MHz difference in favor of AMD. The base clocks are 800 MHz for AMD and 300 MHz for Intel, but the AMD part’s higher base clock may indicate better sustained performance under load, though TDP figures are close (28 W vs. 25 W).

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The AMD part’s 119.9 GB/s is fixed, while the Intel part’s bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it could be higher or lower depending on the host platform. For workloads that require predictable memory performance, the AMD part is more reliable.

The Intel part’s higher shading unit count (1280 vs. 768) may offset its lower FP32 throughput in some shader-bound scenarios, but the AMD part’s higher texture and pixel rates suggest it is better optimized for rasterization. The AMD part also has a larger transistor count (25,390 million) and die size (178 mm²), though the Intel part’s transistor count is unknown, so no density comparison is possible.

In summary, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is stronger in rasterization and memory-bound tasks, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 is stronger in FP16 compute and offers a smaller process node. The choice between them depends on whether the workload prioritizes dedicated memory and fill rate or half-precision compute and integration efficiency.