AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not currently contain any head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU versus the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both products have an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, meaning neither has recorded performance data yet. Without measured results, the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification fields that are present.

The most significant numerical gap between the two lies in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU manages 8.294 TFLOPS. This makes the NVIDIA part approximately 2.9 times faster in single-precision floating-point work, a substantial margin that would likely translate into large differences in compute-heavy workloads such as physics simulation, rendering, or general-purpose GPU compute.

Texture throughput shows an even wider disparity. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM achieves 750.7 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD part, a factor of about 5.8. This suggests the NVIDIA GPU has far more texture units operating at high efficiency. Pixel rates are closer: 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD, a difference of roughly 8.6 percent. That narrow gap in pixel throughput indicates that in fill-rate-bound scenarios, the two parts may behave similarly despite their other differences.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. It reaches 273.2 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU tops out at 119.9 GB/s. That is a 2.3x advantage for NVIDIA, which becomes critical for workloads that stream large datasets, such as high-resolution textures or large model inference. The AMD part does counter with a higher boost clock: 2700 MHz versus 2346 MHz, a 15.1 percent advantage. The AMD base clock is also higher at 800 MHz versus 741 MHz, though boost clocks matter more for sustained performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU appears positioned for efficiency in constrained environments. Its 28 W TDP is listed, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP. The AMD chip uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, which is a smaller node than the 5 nm process used by the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. This node advantage, combined with lower clocks and a smaller die (178 mm² versus 382 mm²), suggests the AMD part could sustain its performance within a tighter power envelope. The AMD GPU also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all API support fields, indicating it may not expose standard graphics APIs.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively on raw resources. It has 5120 shading units versus 768, 320 texture mapping units versus 48, 40 ROPs versus 32, 40 ray tracing cores versus 12, and 160 tensor cores versus none listed on the AMD side. Memory capacity is also dramatically different: 128 GB versus 16 GB, with a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit. These figures point toward the NVIDIA part being designed for large-scale compute or AI workloads rather than conventional gaming graphics.

In terms of memory clock, the NVIDIA part runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate, while the AMD runs at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA memory clock is 13.9 percent higher, and with double the bus width, total bandwidth scales accordingly.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Hawk Point chip. It is classified as a Console GPU generation from AMD. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built around the GB20B chip, and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: RDNA 3.0 focuses on efficient rasterization and gaming features, while Blackwell 2.0 leans toward AI acceleration with a large tensor core array.

Process technology separates the two clearly. AMD uses a 4 nm TSMC node, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node. The AMD die measures 178 mm² and contains 25,390 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is larger at 382 mm², but its transistor count is listed as unknown, so density cannot be computed.

Ray tracing hardware differs significantly. The NVIDIA part contains 40 RT cores, while the AMD part has 12. Tensor cores are present only on the NVIDIA side, with 160 units. This makes the NVIDIA N1X 40SM far better suited for machine learning inference, neural network training, or DLSS-style workloads, while the AMD part has no tensor hardware at all.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both use LPDDR5X, but NVIDIA doubles the bus width from 128-bit to 256-bit and quadruples capacity from 16 GB to 128 GB. The AMD part lists a single USB Type-C display output, while the NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI output. Power connectors are listed as "None" for both, consistent with integrated or low-power designs.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. Starting with clocks, AMD runs at 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory speed favors NVIDIA: 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) versus 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective). Bandwidth is 273.2 GB/s versus 119.9 GB/s.

Memory capacity is a major separator: 128 GB on NVIDIA versus 16 GB on AMD. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Shading units count 5120 versus 768, a 6.7x difference. TMUs number 320 versus 48, a 6.7x difference. ROPs are 40 versus 32, a 1.25x difference. RT cores are 40 versus 12, a 3.3x difference. Tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA with 160 units.

Pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, a 1.09x difference. Texture rate is 750.7 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, a 5.79x difference. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 24.02 TFLOPS on NVIDIA versus 8.294 TFLOPS on AMD, a 2.9x difference. Both list FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Power draw is only specified for AMD at 28 W; NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. The NVIDIA part is listed as an IGP with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part has no bus interface listed. The NVIDIA part has a slot width of "IGP", while AMD has none. Release dates differ: AMD is dated 2024-12-31, while NVIDIA is dated 2026-05-31. Die size is 382 mm² for NVIDIA versus 178 mm² for AMD. Transistor count is 25,390 million for AMD, unknown for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, which is approximately 2.9 times the 8.294 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM reaches 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU provides 119.9 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. NVIDIA has a 2.3x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU have tensor cores?

A: No tensor cores are listed for the AMD part. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 160 tensor cores.

Q: What is the difference in ray tracing hardware?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 RT cores, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 12 RT cores.

Q: Which GPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: What graphics API support does each GPU list?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.