AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. With zero head-to-head results and no wins attributed to either side, the comparison must rely entirely on architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures.

Examining raw compute capabilities, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation holds a clear lead in FP32 throughput. Its 12.35 TFLOPS FP32 figure exceeds the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU's 8.294 TFLOPS by roughly 49 percent. This advantage extends to texture and pixel processing as well. The NVIDIA part delivers 193.0 GTexel/s texture fill rate versus 129.6 GTexel/s on the AMD side, a 49 percent gap. Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA more modestly: 96.48 GPixel/s against 86.40 GPixel/s, an 11.7 percent difference.

Memory bandwidth tells a different story, but not one that favors the AMD part. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation reaches 256.0 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU manages 119.9 GB/s. That puts NVIDIA at 2.14 times the bandwidth of AMD, a substantial margin that affects texture streaming, ray tracing data access, and high-resolution rendering workloads.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU does counter in power efficiency. Its 28 W TDP is nearly half the 50 W TDP of the NVIDIA part, meaning the AMD GPU delivers its 8.294 TFLOPS at a lower power envelope. Per watt, AMD produces 0.296 TFLOPS per watt, while NVIDIA produces 0.247 TFLOPS per watt. The AMD part is approximately 20 percent more efficient in raw FP32 per watt, though this advantage does not translate into higher absolute performance.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz, a wide dynamic range. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation operates at a higher base clock of 1530 MHz but a lower boost clock of 2010 MHz. The AMD part's 2700 MHz boost represents a 34 percent higher peak clock than NVIDIA's 2010 MHz boost, which partially compensates for its lower shader count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU generation, while NVIDIA's part is in the Ada-MW generation.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal different design philosophies. AMD's chip packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA's chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, with a density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. AMD's 4 nm process allows for denser packing, giving it 34 percent more transistors per square millimeter than NVIDIA's 5 nm design.

Shader architecture diverges sharply. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. NVIDIA's shader count is exactly four times AMD's, while its TMUs are double and ROPs are 1.5 times higher. The lower boost clock on NVIDIA's part does not close the gap: NVIDIA still achieves 12.35 TFLOPS FP32 versus 8.294 TFLOPS.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count and type. AMD lists 12 ray tracing cores, while NVIDIA lists 24 RT cores. NVIDIA also includes 96 tensor cores, a feature absent from the AMD specification sheet entirely. This gives the NVIDIA part dedicated hardware for AI acceleration and ray tracing workloads that AMD cannot match with its listed specifications.

Memory subsystems use different technologies. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU employs 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus at 937 MHz, achieving 119.9 GB/s. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 2000 MHz, achieving 256.0 GB/s. Both use the same 128-bit bus width, but GDDR6's higher data rate doubles the bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Power delivery differs as well. AMD specifies a 28 W TDP with no power connectors required. NVIDIA specifies 50 W TDP with no power connectors as well, but its bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16, while AMD's bus interface is not listed. NVIDIA's slot width is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor), suggesting a compact embedded form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every absolute performance category recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 12.35 TFLOPS surpasses AMD's 8.294 TFLOPS. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is over double AMD's 119.9 GB/s. Texture fill rate of 193.0 GTexel/s exceeds AMD's 129.6 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate of 96.48 GPixel/s beats AMD's 86.40 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also carries 24 RT cores versus 12, and 96 tensor cores versus none.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in power efficiency and memory capacity. At 28 W TDP, the AMD part uses 44 percent less power than NVIDIA's 50 W TDP. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5X doubles the 8 GB GDDR6 capacity of the NVIDIA part. For workloads constrained by power budgets or those requiring large memory footprints for data sets, the AMD GPU offers advantages.

Clock speed behavior also splits the two. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU's 2700 MHz boost clock is 34 percent higher than NVIDIA's 2010 MHz boost. This higher peak clock could benefit burst workloads that respond to clock frequency rather than raw shader throughput. The AMD part's base clock of 800 MHz is substantially lower than NVIDIA's 1530 MHz, meaning sustained workloads may see NVIDIA maintain higher minimum performance.

The AMD part's transistor density advantage, 142.6M per square millimeter versus 118.9M, indicates a more compact design per transistor. This does not translate into performance superiority, but it reflects process node maturity and integration efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. Process node: AMD uses 4 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Transistor count: AMD has 25,390 million, NVIDIA has 18,900 million. Die size: AMD measures 178 mm², NVIDIA measures 159 mm². Transistor density: AMD achieves 142.6M per mm², NVIDIA achieves 118.9M per mm².

Clock speeds: AMD runs 800 MHz base and 2700 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs 1530 MHz base and 2010 MHz boost. Memory clocks: AMD lists 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, NVIDIA lists 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration: AMD has 16 GB LPDDR5X, NVIDIA has 8 GB GDDR6. Both use 128-bit buses, but bandwidth differs: AMD at 119.9 GB/s, NVIDIA at 256.0 GB/s.

Compute units: AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 12 RT cores, no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, 96 tensor cores.

Fill rates: AMD produces 86.40 GPixel/s and 129.6 GTexel/s. NVIDIA produces 96.48 GPixel/s and 193.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 throughput: AMD lists 8.294 TFLOPS for both, NVIDIA lists 12.35 TFLOPS for both.

Power: AMD TDP is 28 W, NVIDIA TDP is 50 W. Both require no power connectors. NVIDIA specifies PCIe 4.0 x16 and IGP slot width, AMD does not list these fields. Display outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C, NVIDIA has Portable Device Dependent.

Release dates: AMD released on 2024-12-31, NVIDIA on 2023-03-20. Both are active in production. NVIDIA lists its predecessor as Ampere-MW and successor as Blackwell-MW, while AMD has no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS FP32, which is 49 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU's 8.294 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD GPU have more memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5X, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s, more than double the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU's 119.9 GB/s.

Q: How do their TDPs compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a 50 W TDP.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GPU have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA part has 96 tensor cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU lists no tensor cores.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses a 4 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation for applications demanding maximum compute throughput. Its 12.35 TFLOPS FP32, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 193.0 GTexel/s texture rate position it as the stronger performer across all measured performance categories. The inclusion of 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores adds specialized hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads that the AMD part lacks entirely.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU suits scenarios where power consumption and memory capacity take priority. Its 28 W TDP is 44 percent lower than NVIDIA's 50 W, and its 16 GB memory capacity is double NVIDIA's 8 GB. For embedded systems with tight thermal budgets or applications holding large datasets in VRAM, the AMD part provides a viable alternative. Its 2700 MHz boost clock also offers a peak frequency advantage over NVIDIA's 2010 MHz.

The NVIDIA part's higher bandwidth, 256.0 GB/s versus 119.9 GB/s, makes it the better choice for memory-intensive rendering, high-resolution textures, and ray tracing workloads that require rapid data movement. The AMD part's larger memory pool, 16 GB versus 8 GB, suits workloads that need capacity over speed, such as large model inference or substantial scene data.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores or head-to-head results in the database, so the verdict rests on specification analysis. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins on absolute performance, feature set, and bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins on power efficiency, memory capacity, and peak clock speed. Buyers prioritizing raw throughput should select NVIDIA, while those prioritizing power draw and memory size should consider AMD.