AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU or the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550. Both entries return an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This means there are no direct performance comparisons available in the current dataset. The wins tally for each product also sits at zero, reflecting the absence of measured results.

Without benchmark data, the comparison must rely on the technical specifications and the percentile ranks provided. Both GPUs hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, indicating they sit at the median of the recorded field. That percentile is a positional statement, not a performance measurement, so it should not be read as evidence of equivalence in real-world tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers a FP32 compute rating of 8.294 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance matching at 8.294 TFLOPS on a 1:1 basis. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550, by contrast, shows FP32 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS and FP16 at the same 52.43 TFLOPS, also 1:1. The Intel part is roughly 6.3 times higher in raw floating-point throughput based on these recorded figures. That is a substantial gap, but it comes with a correspondingly larger power envelope.

The texture fill rate tells a similar story. AMD lists 129.6 GTexel/s, while Intel reports 1,638.4 GTexel/s. Intel's texture rate is more than 12 times higher. Pixel rate, however, inverts: AMD shows 86.40 GPixel/s, while Intel shows 0 MPixel/s, effectively zero. This reflects a fundamental difference in how the two designs handle raster output, which matters for conventional display workloads.

Memory bandwidth also diverges sharply. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, yielding 119.9 GB/s. The Intel part carries 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, producing 3.28 TB/s. Intel's bandwidth advantage is roughly 27 times larger. Memory capacity favors Intel by a factor of eight.

Clock speeds differ in direction. AMD's base clock is 800 MHz with a boost of 2700 MHz, a wide operating range that suggests dynamic scaling. Intel's base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz, a narrower range. Effective memory speed also differs: AMD reports 7.5 Gbps effective, Intel reports 3.2 Gbps effective, though the bus width differences dwarf this comparison.

Transistor counts and die sizes are far apart. AMD packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. Intel integrates 100,000 million transistors across a 1280 mm² die, a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. AMD's density is nearly double per area, reflecting the 4 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10 nm node.

The absence of benchmark results means no direct wins can be credited to either side. The raw specification sheet, however, clearly positions the Intel part as a much larger, more power-hungry compute device, while the AMD part fits a far smaller power budget.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two very different products with distinct intended environments. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU operates at 28 W TDP with no power connectors and a single USB Type-C display output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 operates at 600 W TDP, requires a 1000 W suggested power supply, uses an OAM Module slot width, and provides no display outputs. These are not competing in the same physical or thermal class.

Users seeking a low-power, display-capable GPU with a compact footprint should look to the AMD part. Its 28 W envelope, single USB Type-C output, and 4 nm process make it suitable for embedded or mobile-style configurations. The Intel part, with its 600 W TDP, OAM Module form factor, and absence of display outputs, is clearly aimed at rack-mounted compute infrastructure.

The FP32 and FP16 figures point strongly toward Intel for compute-heavy workloads. At 52.43 TFLOPS in both precisions, the Intel part offers a level of throughput that the AMD part cannot approach on paper. The memory subsystem reinforces this: 128 GB of HBM2e with 3.28 TB/s bandwidth is a data-center-class resource, while 16 GB of LPDDR5X at 119.9 GB/s serves a much lighter role.

The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan is listed as null. This matters for graphics API compatibility. DirectX 12 Ultimate includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, and the AMD part lists 12 RT cores. Intel lists 128 RT cores, but the API support is one tier lower.

The database shows no average benchmark score for either product, so no performance verdict can be drawn from measured results. The verdict rests entirely on specification analysis. If the workload requires massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high FP32 throughput in a server environment, the Intel part is the only choice. If the workload requires low power consumption, display output, and modern graphics API features in a compact device, the AMD part stands alone.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 records 52.43 TFLOPS, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU records 8.294 TFLOPS. Intel's figure is approximately 6.3 times higher.

Q: How much memory does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU provides 16 GB of LPDDR5X, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 provides 128 GB of HBM2e.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: AMD lists 119.9 GB/s, Intel lists 3.28 TB/s. Intel's bandwidth is roughly 27 times larger.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is one tier lower.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 28 W and uses no power connectors. The Intel part has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested power supply of 1000 W.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have display outputs?

A: No, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 lists "No outputs" for display connections. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU includes one USB Type-C output.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 10 nm from Intel. Transistor count: AMD at 25,390 million, Intel at 100,000 million. Die size: AMD at 178 mm², Intel at 1280 mm². Transistor density: AMD at 142.6 million per mm², Intel at 78.1 million per mm².

Base clock: AMD at 800 MHz, Intel at 900 MHz. Boost clock: AMD at 2700 MHz, Intel at 1600 MHz. Memory clock: AMD at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, Intel at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. Memory size: 16 GB versus 128 GB. Memory type: LPDDR5X versus HBM2e. Bus width: 128 bit versus 8192 bit. Bandwidth: 119.9 GB/s versus 3.28 TB/s.

Shading units: 768 versus 16384. Texture mapping units: 48 versus 1024. Raster operation units: 32 versus 0. Ray tracing cores: 12 versus 128. Pixel rate: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS. FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS.

TDP: 28 W versus 600 W. Slot width: null for AMD, OAM Module for Intel. Power connectors: none for AMD, null for Intel. Suggested PSU: null for AMD, 1000 W for Intel. Bus interface: null for AMD, PCIe 5.0 x16 for Intel. Display outputs: 1x USB Type-C for AMD, none for Intel.

API support: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan null. Release dates also differ: AMD released on 2024-12-31, Intel on 2023-01-09. Intel's successor is listed as H3C Graphics; AMD has no successor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, categorized as a Console GPU. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip with Generation 12.5 architecture, categorized as a Data Center GPU. These are fundamentally different design lineages.

AMD's RDNA 3.0 is a graphics-oriented architecture built for rendering and display workloads. Its 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support indicate a focus on modern game-style rendering features. The 32 ROPs and 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate confirm that rasterization output is present and active. The single USB Type-C output suggests direct display connectivity is a design goal.

Intel's Ponte Vecchio is a data center compute architecture. It has zero ROPs, which is why pixel rate reads as 0 MPixel/s. The 128 ray tracing cores exist, but the API support stops at DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan is absent. The lack of display outputs reinforces that this part is not built for graphics presentation. Its 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs point toward parallel compute workloads rather than frame rendering.

The process node difference is significant. AMD's 4 nm TSMC process allows a much higher transistor density: 142.6 million per mm² versus Intel's 78.1 million per mm² on 10 nm. AMD fits 25,390 million transistors into 178 mm², while Intel spreads 100,000 million across 1280 mm². The larger die and older node explain the higher power draw.

Memory architecture also differs categorically. AMD uses LPDDR5X, a low-power memory type suited to integrated or compact designs, on a 128-bit bus. Intel uses HBM2e, a high-bandwidth stacked memory, on an 8192-bit bus. The bandwidth result, 119.9 GB/s versus 3.28 TB/s, reflects the bus width difference more than the memory clock difference.

FP16 and FP32 are both 1:1 on each part, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration is recorded. The compute figures scale directly with the shading unit counts. Intel's 52.43 TFLOPS across both precisions dwarfs AMD's 8.294 TFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in any scenario that values low power consumption. Its 28 W TDP, absence of power connectors, and lack of a suggested PSU requirement make it viable for compact, thermally constrained systems. The 4 nm process and 178 mm² die keep the physical footprint small. The single USB Type-C output gives it a display capability that the Intel part entirely lacks.

The AMD part also wins on modern graphics API support. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 are both present, while Intel only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no Vulkan entry. For workloads that depend on those APIs, the AMD part is the only one of the two with full support.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 52.43 TFLOPS are over six times the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS. Texture rate at 1,638.4 GTexel/s is over twelve times higher. For dense parallel math, the Intel part is clearly the stronger device.

Intel also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 128 GB HBM2e pool with 3.28 TB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-throughput access. The AMD part's 16 GB and 119.9 GB/s are orders of magnitude smaller. Any workload that needs to hold massive working sets in memory will favor Intel.

The Intel part wins on shading unit count and ray tracing core count: 16384 shading units versus 768, and 128 RT cores versus 12. These numbers indicate a much wider parallel execution width, even if the API support is lower.

The AMD part wins on pixel rate, 86.40 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, which makes it the only one of the two capable of rasterizing a display signal. The Intel part has no ROPs and no display outputs, so it cannot drive a screen.

The AMD part also wins on transistor density, 142.6 million per mm² versus 78.1 million per mm², reflecting a more efficient use of silicon area. Its boost clock of 2700 MHz is also higher than Intel's 1600 MHz boost.

In summary, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the choice for compact, low-power, display-connected graphics work with modern API support. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the choice for high-throughput compute, massive memory, and data center deployment where power and form factor are secondary concerns.