AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison
AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU
RTX 2000 Ada Generation
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two products. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a full suite of ten recorded tests. This means the NVIDIA part wins every measurable comparison by default, but the absence of data for the AMD part does not imply it lacks capability. It simply means the database has not recorded any scores for it yet.
The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation shows its strongest results in compute-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 78074 and Vulkan score of 83360 indicate substantial throughput in general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 7834 reinforces this pattern, showing that the Ada Lovelace architecture handles compute-heavy workloads well. These numbers place the RTX 2000 Ada at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18954.
The synthetic gaming and graphics tests tell a more nuanced story. The Passmark DirectX 11 score of 138 is the highest among the DirectX tests, followed by DirectX 9 at 216, DirectX 10 at 82, and DirectX 12 at 71. The DirectX 9 result exceeding the DirectX 12 result by a factor of roughly three suggests the card's legacy rasterization performance is strong relative to its newer API performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1767 provides a modern reference point that is considerably lower than the Passmark numbers, reflecting the heavier load of contemporary ray-traced and mesh-heavy workloads.
The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU, with its 28 W TDP and console-oriented design, is positioned for an entirely different use case. Its lack of recorded benchmarks means the database cannot confirm how it compares in any specific test. What the data does show is that it belongs to the Console GPU generation, uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, and targets a power envelope that is less than half that of the NVIDIA part. The use-case split is therefore one of measured performance versus unmeasured potential, with the NVIDIA card being the only one whose actual scores appear in the database.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built around the Hawk Point chip. It packs 25,390 million transistors onto a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, built around the AD107 chip. It contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter.
The compute configurations diverge sharply. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. It includes 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has nearly four times the shader count, roughly double the TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. The presence of tensor cores on the NVIDIA side enables AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD part cannot handle through dedicated hardware.
Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz, a wide frequency range that reflects its power-conscious design. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada runs at a higher base of 1620 MHz and boosts to 2130 MHz, a narrower range with a higher floor. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD part uses 937 MHz memory with 7.5 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA part uses 2000 MHz memory with 16 Gbps effective speed.
The memory subsystems are both 128-bit and 16 GB, but the types differ. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X, which is optimized for low power consumption, while the NVIDIA part uses GDDR6, which offers higher bandwidth at the cost of more power. The bandwidth gap is significant: 119.9 GB/s for the AMD part versus 256.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part, a difference of more than double.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are impossible because the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no recorded scores. The database lists no head-to-head benchmark entries and no wins for either side. This is a case where the only available measured data comes from the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation.
The RTX 2000 Ada's Passmark G3D score of 16927 is its highest single-test result, placing it well above the scores of its nearest rivals. The database shows the RTX 2000 Ada averaging 18954 across all tests, with a percentile rank of 63 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19030 (0.4% below), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19036 (0.4% below), the NVIDIA Tesla K80 at 18866 (0.5% above), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049 (0.5% below). These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating that the RTX 2000 Ada sits in a tightly packed performance cluster.
The compute-oriented tests show the RTX 2000 Ada's strengths most clearly. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 83360 is the highest recorded score across all test types, followed closely by the OpenCL score of 78074. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 7834 is substantially lower than the Geekbench numbers, which reflects the different workload characteristics of each test suite. The DirectX 9 Passmark score of 216 is the highest among the Passmark DirectX tests, while the DirectX 11 score of 138 shows modern API performance at roughly two-thirds of the legacy DirectX 9 level.
The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1767 is the lowest absolute number among all recorded tests, but this test is known for its demanding modern workload. The Passmark G2D score of 1072 indicates the card's 2D performance is modest relative to its 3D capabilities. The pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 187.4 GTexel/s provide additional context: these are the theoretical maximums the card can sustain, and they align with its measured performance profile.
Specification Differences
The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The process node differs: the AMD part uses 4 nm while the NVIDIA part uses 5 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts differ substantially: 25,390 million for AMD versus 18,900 million for NVIDIA, despite the AMD die being larger at 178 mm² versus 159 mm². This gives the AMD part a higher transistor density of 142.6M per mm² compared to 118.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.
The clock speeds follow different patterns. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost clock of 2130 MHz. The memory clock also differs: 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective for AMD versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.
The shading hardware is the largest single difference. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The ray tracing cores number 12 for AMD and 22 for NVIDIA, and the NVIDIA part adds 88 tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely.
Memory bandwidth shows a major gap: 119.9 GB/s for the AMD part versus 256.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part. Both use a 128-bit bus and 16 GB of memory, but the LPDDR5X versus GDDR6 difference drives the bandwidth disparity. The pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD and 102.2 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD and 187.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 throughput is 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD and 12.00 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, with both parts running at a 1:1 FP16 ratio.
Power consumption differs by a factor of 2.5: the AMD part has a 28 W TDP while the NVIDIA part has a 70 W TDP. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a 168 mm length and 69 mm height, while the AMD part lists no dimensions. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD part lists no bus interface. Display outputs differ: the AMD part has a single USB Type-C, while the NVIDIA part has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA card has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the AMD part lists none. Both parts have no power connectors. The NVIDIA part has a launch MSRP of 649 USD. The release dates differ: the AMD part launched on 2024-12-31, while the NVIDIA part launched on 2024-02-11.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has more shading units?
A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2816 shading units, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768. This is a difference of more than threefold.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?
A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth using LPDDR5X memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s using GDDR6 memory. Both have 16 GB capacities on 128-bit buses.
Q: Does either card have tensor cores?
A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has tensor cores, with 88 of them. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU lists no tensor cores in its specification.
Q: How do the power requirements compare?
A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP. The NVIDIA card also suggests a 250 W power supply, while the AMD part lists no suggested PSU.
Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?
A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS. Both run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.
Q: How does the NVIDIA card compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation averages 18954 in benchmark scores, sitting within one percentage point of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19030, 0.4% below), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, 0.4% below), the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18866, 0.5% above), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, 0.5% below).
The Verdict
The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only one of the two with any benchmark scores in the database, and those scores place it at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 18954 puts it in a tight cluster with four rivals, all within one percentage point. This indicates a consistent, competitive performance level across multiple test suites.
The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no recorded scores, so the database cannot confirm its performance level. Its specifications suggest a different design philosophy: a 28 W TDP, 768 shading units, and 119.9 GB/s of bandwidth point to a low-power console-oriented part. The 2700 MHz boost clock is higher than the NVIDIA card's 2130 MHz, which may help close the gap in some workloads, but the raw compute resources are far smaller.
The architectural differences reinforce the performance split. The NVIDIA card has 88 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely, enabling AI-accelerated workloads. The NVIDIA card also has nearly double the ray tracing cores (22 versus 12) and more than triple the shading units. The memory bandwidth advantage of more than double gives the NVIDIA card a clear edge in bandwidth-sensitive applications.
For users selecting between these two, the data suggests the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the choice for measured, verified performance across a wide range of workloads. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the choice for applications where the 28 W power envelope is the primary constraint, as no other GPU in this comparison operates at such a low TDP. The database records no benchmark wins for either side, so the decision rests on the available measurements: the NVIDIA card has them, and the AMD card does not.