AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD chip is named Hawk Point, whereas the NVIDIA chip is AD104.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU. That is 2.78 times higher.

Q: What is the power envelope of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W. The NVIDIA part also lists a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has one USB Type-C display output. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation represent two fundamentally different design philosophies within the embedded and mobile GPU space. The AMD part is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture using TSMC's 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA part uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process. The process node difference is small, but it affects transistor density: the AMD chip packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, yielding 142.6 million transistors per mm², while the NVIDIA chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding 121.8 million transistors per mm².

The chip layouts differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has no direct equivalent to AMD's ray tracing core count, but the presence of tensor cores indicates a hardware investment in AI and deep learning workloads, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU has a base clock of 1725 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz. The AMD part runs at a higher boost frequency, but the NVIDIA part starts from a much higher base, reflecting different thermal and power design targets.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA memory subsystem provides 432.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 119.9 GB/s for the AMD part, a 3.6 times difference. The AMD GPU's larger capacity may benefit certain workloads, but the NVIDIA GPU's bandwidth advantage is decisive for data-heavy tasks.

The power delivery and physical footprint also differ. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W and no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W, also no power connectors, but lists a suggested PSU of 300 W. The NVIDIA part is designated as IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width, whereas the AMD part leaves slot width unspecified. The AMD GPU includes one USB Type-C display output, while the NVIDIA GPU has no display outputs, indicating it is intended for compute-only or embedded use cases where display output is handled elsewhere.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. However, the specification data provides clear comparative signals. The most decisive difference is raw compute performance. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation achieves 23.04 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.78 times the 8.294 TFLOPS of the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU. That gap is consistent across FP16, where both GPUs deliver 1:1 ratios with their FP32 values: the NVIDIA part again posts 23.04 TFLOPS versus 8.294 TFLOPS for the AMD part.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA GPU has a texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD GPU, a 2.78 times advantage. Pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD, a 1.67 times advantage. These numbers indicate that the NVIDIA part sustains higher fill rates across both texture-bound and pixel-bound workloads.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA part extends its lead further. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is 3.60 times higher than the AMD GPU's 119.9 GB/s. This matters for workloads that stream large datasets, such as neural network inference, high-resolution texture sampling, or compute kernels with large working sets. The AMD GPU's 16 GB capacity is larger than the NVIDIA part's 12 GB, but bandwidth differences frequently dominate in practical throughput measurements.

The clock profiles tell a more nuanced story. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU boosts to 2700 MHz, which is 20% higher than the NVIDIA part's 2250 MHz boost. But the NVIDIA GPU starts at 1725 MHz base, more than double the AMD base of 800 MHz. The AMD part's higher boost suggests it can reach peak performance quickly under light loads, but the NVIDIA part's high base clock indicates sustained performance under continuous load is likely stronger relative to its own boost ceiling.

Both GPUs support identical API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software compatibility is not a differentiator. The NVIDIA part's 160 tensor cores provide a hardware path for AI acceleration that the AMD part lacks entirely. The AMD part's 12 ray tracing cores versus NVIDIA's 40 ray tracing cores suggest a 3.33 times advantage in ray tracing hardware count for the NVIDIA part, though architectural efficiency differences are not recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification field. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace. Process nodes are 4 nm for AMD and 5 nm for NVIDIA, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 25,390 million versus 35,800 million, and die sizes are 178 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is higher on the AMD part at 142.6M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

Clock speeds: AMD base is 800 MHz, boost is 2700 MHz. NVIDIA base is 1725 MHz, boost is 2250 MHz. Memory clocks: AMD is 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective), NVIDIA is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration: AMD has 16 GB LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 ray tracing cores, and 160 tensor cores.

Rates: AMD pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s, texture rate is 129.6 GTexel/s, FP32 is 8.294 TFLOPS, FP16 is 8.294 TFLOPS. NVIDIA pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s, texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s, FP32 is 23.04 TFLOPS, FP16 is 23.04 TFLOPS.

Power: AMD TDP is 28 W, NVIDIA TDP is 100 W. NVIDIA also lists a suggested PSU of 300 W; AMD lists none. Power connectors are "None" for both.

Physical and interface: NVIDIA slot width is IGP, bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16. AMD slot width is unspecified, bus interface is unspecified. Display outputs: AMD has 1x USB Type-C, NVIDIA has no outputs.

Production status is Active for both. Release dates differ: AMD is 2024-12-31, NVIDIA is 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW) listed; the AMD part has neither. The NVIDIA part is listed as belonging to the GeForce 30-series, while the AMD part has no series designation.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. No launch MSRP is recorded for either part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in scenarios that favor its lower power envelope and larger memory capacity. At 28 W TDP, it operates at less than one-third the power of the NVIDIA part. This makes it suitable for compact, thermally constrained systems where sustained peak performance is less important than staying within a tight power budget. The 16 GB memory capacity exceeds the NVIDIA part by 4 GB, which can be decisive for workloads that need to hold larger models or datasets entirely in VRAM, even if the bandwidth is lower. The AMD GPU's single USB Type-C display output also gives it a display capability that the NVIDIA part lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in performance-dominated scenarios. Its 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 is 2.78 times higher, its texture rate is 2.78 times higher, and its pixel rate is 1.67 times higher. Memory bandwidth at 432.0 GB/s is 3.60 times higher. The 160 tensor cores provide a dedicated path for AI inference and training workloads, which the AMD part cannot match. The 40 ray tracing cores are 3.33 times the count of the AMD part, suggesting stronger ray tracing throughput. The NVIDIA part also has a higher base clock, which indicates better sustained compute behavior under load. The PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface provides a wider host connection, useful for data transfer between the GPU and system memory.

For gaming-type workloads, the NVIDIA part's higher fill rates and larger shader count give it a clear advantage in raw rendering throughput. For compute workloads, the NVIDIA part's tensor cores and bandwidth dominate. For embedded or mobile applications where power is the primary constraint, the AMD part's 28 W TDP is a significant advantage. For applications that require display output, the AMD part includes one USB Type-C output, while the NVIDIA part has none.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two GPUs by role. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is a low-power, high-capacity memory part. Its 28 W TDP, 16 GB LPDDR5X memory, and 2700 MHz boost clock indicate a design aimed at power-sensitive embedded systems that need large memory and moderate compute. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 and 119.9 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for mainstream tasks but not for heavy compute or high-resolution graphics.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is a high-throughput compute and graphics part. Its 23.04 TFLOPS FP32, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, 160 tensor cores, and 40 ray tracing cores place it in a different performance class. The 100 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU confirm it requires a more substantial power delivery system. Its lack of display outputs and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for integration into systems where the GPU does not drive displays directly.

The percentile ranking for both GPUs is identical at 50, meaning neither part is positioned at the extreme high or low end of the overall GPU distribution. The absence of recorded benchmark scores and head-to-head results prevents a measured performance comparison. The specification data, however, provides a consistent picture: the NVIDIA part outperforms the AMD part by factors between 1.67 and 3.60 across compute, texture, pixel, and bandwidth metrics. The AMD part counters with lower power draw and 4 GB more memory capacity.

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the system requirements. If the priority is minimal power consumption, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the only sensible option, as the NVIDIA part draws over 3.5 times the power. If the priority is maximum compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or AI acceleration, the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is the only option that provides those capabilities. The AMD part cannot be recommended for compute-heavy tasks given its 2.78 times lower FP32 throughput and 3.60 times lower memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA part cannot be recommended for power-constrained or display-output-required systems given its 100 W TDP and absence of display outputs. The data supports a clear verdict: each GPU wins in its intended use case, and neither is a general-purpose replacement for the other.