AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q. Both parts have empty benchmark arrays, zero recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison, and identical percentile standings at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely on the architectural specifications and compute capabilities listed in the database rather than empirical test results.

The FP32 compute figures provide the clearest quantitative distinction. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q delivers 11.34 TFLOPS of single-precision performance, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU produces 8.294 TFLOPS. This translates to a 36.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw shader throughput, a significant margin for workloads that scale directly with FP32 operations. The texture rate tells a similar story: the RTX 4070 Max-Q reaches 177.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s for the Ryzen Z2 GPU, a 36.6% lead in texture fill capability.

However, the pixel rate comparison flips in favor of the AMD part. The Ryzen Z2 GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, while the RTX 4070 Max-Q manages 59.04 GPixel/s. The AMD design is 46.3% ahead in pixel throughput, which suggests a different rasterization balance. The Ryzen Z2 GPU pairs 32 ROPs with its 768 shading units, while the NVIDIA part uses 48 ROPs alongside 4608 shading units. The higher ROP count on NVIDIA does not compensate for the clock speed differential in this metric, as the AMD part boosts to 2700 MHz versus 1230 MHz on the NVIDIA chip.

Memory bandwidth shows a substantial NVIDIA advantage. The RTX 4070 Max-Q provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 interface, while the Ryzen Z2 GPU offers 119.9 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus with LPDDR5X memory. The NVIDIA part has 113.5% more bandwidth, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads such as high-resolution texturing and large dataset processing. The effective memory clock rates reflect this gap: 16 Gbps effective on the NVIDIA part versus 7.5 Gbps effective on the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q delivers 11.34 TFLOPS, which is 36.7% higher than the 8.294 TFLOPS produced by the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 128-bit bus but provides only 119.9 GB/s. The NVIDIA memory interface offers 113.5% more bandwidth despite having half the capacity.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, which is 46.3% faster than the 59.04 GPixel/s recorded for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q contains 4608 shading units and 36 ray tracing cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU contains 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA also includes 144 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists none.

Q: How do the thermal design power figures differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has a 35 W TDP. The NVIDIA part draws 25% more power according to the recorded TDP values.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q claims superiority in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 11.34 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS positions it ahead for general-purpose shader work, physics simulations, and any workload where raw ALU throughput dominates. The texture rate advantage, 177.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, favors the NVIDIA part for texture-dense rendering. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 119.9 GB/s gives NVIDIA a decisive edge in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, such as large framebuffer operations, heavy post-processing chains, and data streaming. The presence of 144 tensor cores on the NVIDIA chip versus none on the AMD part indicates an advantage for accelerated machine learning inference and DLSS-style features, though no benchmark data confirms the magnitude. The 36 ray tracing cores versus 12 also suggests stronger ray-traced workload capability, again without measured confirmation.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins the pixel throughput comparison with 86.40 GPixel/s versus 59.04 GPixel/s. This 46.3% advantage suggests the AMD part excels in scenarios where rasterization output rate is the bottleneck, such as lower-resolution rendering with high overdraw, or simple scenes where pixel fill determines performance. The AMD part also offers 16 GB of memory versus 8 GB, doubling capacity for large assets, though at half the bandwidth. The 28 W TDP versus 35 W indicates lower power draw, which may translate to better efficiency in constrained thermal environments. The 4 nm process node versus 5 nm gives AMD a smaller process geometry, potentially contributing to the lower power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 22,900 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 188 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 735 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 1230 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 937 MHz, 7.5 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Bandwidth | 119.9 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 48 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 144 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 59.04 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 177.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.294 TFLOPS | 11.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) | 11.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 35 W |

| Bus Interface | Not listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Slot Width | Not listed | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2023-01-02 |

| Predecessor | None | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | None | GeForce 50 Mobile |

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD chip integrates 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 22,900 million transistors into a larger 188 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. Both foundries are TSMC, but the smaller process node gives AMD a density advantage.

The compute architecture diverges significantly. NVIDIA fields 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while AMD provides 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA design devotes far more silicon to parallel shader execution, which explains the FP32 throughput advantage. AMD compensates with a much higher boost clock, 2700 MHz versus 1230 MHz, but the six-fold shading unit deficit cannot be overcome by the 2.2x clock advantage. Ray tracing hardware differs with 36 RT cores on NVIDIA versus 12 on AMD. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA chip, with 144 units, enabling dedicated AI acceleration that the AMD part lacks entirely.

Memory architecture differs in both capacity and speed. AMD uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus at 937 MHz, producing 119.9 GB/s. NVIDIA uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same bus width at 2000 MHz, producing 256.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA memory clock is more than double the AMD clock, directly driving the bandwidth gap. The power profiles reflect these design choices: AMD lists 28 W TDP while NVIDIA lists 35 W. Both parts use no external power connectors and have no suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part specifies a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the AMD part does not list a bus interface. Display outputs also differ, with AMD providing a single USB Type-C port and NVIDIA depending on the portable device configuration. The release dates place the NVIDIA part earlier, with a 2023-01-02 launch, while AMD arrived on 2024-12-31. NVIDIA lists predecessors and successors in the GeForce 30 Mobile and GeForce 50 Mobile, respectively, while AMD lists neither.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split based on workload characteristics. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is the stronger choice for compute-intensive tasks. Its FP32 output of 11.34 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part by 36.7%, and its texture rate of 177.1 GTexel/s leads by 36.6%. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provides a 113.5% advantage over the AMD memory subsystem, which is critical for bandwidth-bound rendering and data processing. The 144 tensor cores and 36 ray tracing cores give NVIDIA dedicated hardware for AI-assisted features and ray-traced effects, capabilities that the AMD part lacks entirely. For users prioritizing raw shader throughput, texture-heavy workloads, or high-bandwidth memory access, the data points clearly to the NVIDIA part.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins the pixel throughput comparison with 86.40 GPixel/s, a 46.3% margin over the NVIDIA part. This suggests AMD holds an advantage in scenarios where pixel output rate is the limiting factor, such as simple geometry with heavy fragment shading or lower-resolution rendering. The 16 GB memory capacity doubles the NVIDIA offering, which helps when working with very large datasets or texture sets that exceed 8 GB, though the bandwidth penalty remains. The 28 W TDP indicates lower power draw than the 35 W NVIDIA part, which matters in thermally constrained portable designs. The 4 nm process node and higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 1230 MHz demonstrate AMD's different design philosophy: fewer execution units running at much higher frequencies.

The database shows no measured benchmark results, so these conclusions derive entirely from specification analysis. The percentile standings are identical at 50, and no nearest rival data exists for either part. The choice depends on which specifications matter most for the intended use case. The NVIDIA part dominates in shader throughput, texture fill, memory bandwidth, tensor acceleration, and ray tracing hardware. The AMD part wins in pixel fill, memory capacity, and power efficiency. Neither part emerges as universally superior; the recorded specifications simply define different optimization targets.