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

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural families of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process. Both are built by TSMC but on different nodes.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus with 119.9 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA unit provides substantially higher memory bandwidth despite the smaller capacity.

Q: What is the transistor and die size difference?

A: The AMD chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 121.8M per mm². The AMD die is denser per square millimeter.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a TDP of 28 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W. Neither unit uses external power connectors.

Q: What are the shading and ray tracing resources?

A: The AMD GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GPU has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores, along with 160 tensor cores.

Q: What is the production status and release timing?

A: Both are listed as Active production. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a release date of December 31, 2024, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation was released on March 20, 2023. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW), while the AMD part has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two very different mobile GPU configurations. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is a low-power part with a 28 W TDP, designed around efficiency and a compact 178 mm² die. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation is a much larger, higher-power part at 100 W TDP, with roughly 6.7 times the shading units and nearly double the FP32 throughput.

For workloads that scale with raw compute and memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA unit is the clear choice from the specifications. Its 15.82 TFLOPS FP32 output, 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 5120 shading units place it in a different performance class. The AMD part delivers 8.294 TFLOPS and 119.9 GB/s, which is roughly half the compute and a quarter of the memory bandwidth.

For power-constrained systems, the AMD part is the only sensible option. The 28 W TDP versus 100 W TDP is a massive difference. A system built around the AMD GPU can use much smaller cooling and battery infrastructure. The NVIDIA part requires the thermal and power delivery capacity of a full mobile workstation.

The NVIDIA part also has dedicated tensor cores (160 of them), which the AMD part lacks entirely. Any workflow relying on tensor-accelerated operations would depend on the NVIDIA unit. The AMD part has no tensor core count listed in the database.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is identical on paper. The decision comes down to power budget versus compute and bandwidth requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs. Both parts have an average benchmark score of 0 and no benchmark entries. The wins counters show 0 for each side. Without measured performance data, the comparison rests entirely on the specification sheet.

The raw specification differences point to a dominant NVIDIA lead in most compute metrics. The FP32 throughput of 15.82 TFLOPS on the NVIDIA part is 1.9 times the 8.294 TFLOPS of the AMD part. The texture rate of 247.2 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s gives the NVIDIA part a 1.9 times advantage as well. The pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s is a smaller gap, roughly 1.14 times.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA part runs away with the comparison. At 432.0 GB/s, it offers 3.6 times the 119.9 GB/s of the AMD part. This bandwidth advantage matters for high-resolution textures, large datasets, and any compute workload that streams data through memory.

The NVIDIA part also has 160 TMUs versus 48, and 64 ROPs versus 32. That is 3.3 times the texture units and exactly double the ROPs. The shading unit count of 5120 versus 768 is the largest ratio at roughly 6.7 times.

The AMD part holds advantages in clock speeds. Its boost clock of 2700 MHz compares to 1545 MHz on the NVIDIA part, and its base clock of 800 MHz versus 1110 MHz is lower, but the effective boost is much higher. The memory clock of 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective) on the AMD part is lower than the NVIDIA memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), which explains the bandwidth gap despite the narrower bus.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace.

Process node: 4 nm for AMD, 5 nm for NVIDIA. Both from TSMC. The smaller node gives AMD a transistor density of 142.6M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Transistors: 25,390 million for AMD, 35,800 million for NVIDIA. Die size: 178 mm² for AMD, 294 mm² for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA die is 65% larger by area.

Base clock: 800 MHz for AMD, 1110 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clock: 2700 MHz for AMD, 1545 MHz for NVIDIA. The AMD part boosts significantly higher, but the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base.

Memory: 16 GB LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus for AMD; 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth: 119.9 GB/s for AMD, 432.0 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Shading units: 768 versus 5120. TMUs: 48 versus 160. ROPs: 32 versus 64. Ray tracing cores: 12 versus 40. Tensor cores: none listed for AMD, 160 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate: 86.40 GPixel/s for AMD, 98.88 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 129.6 GTexel/s for AMD, 247.2 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 8.294 TFLOPS for AMD, 15.82 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is identical to FP32 on both at 1:1 ratio.

TDP: 28 W for AMD, 100 W for NVIDIA. Slot width: not listed for AMD, IGP for NVIDIA. Power connectors: None for both. Bus interface: not listed for AMD, PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

Display outputs: 1x USB Type-C for AMD, Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear. AMD uses RDNA 3.0 on a 4 nm TSMC process, built around the Hawk Point chip. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC process, built around the AD104 chip.

The transistor counts tell the scale story. NVIDIA packs 35,800 million transistors into 294 mm². AMD uses 25,390 million transistors in 178 mm². The AMD design achieves higher density at 142.6M per mm², but the NVIDIA design has more total transistors and more die area to work with.

The compute pipeline differs dramatically. AMD's 768 shading units operate at a high 2700 MHz boost clock. NVIDIA's 5120 shading units run at a more modest 1545 MHz boost. The result is that NVIDIA still produces 15.82 TFLOPS versus AMD's 8.294 TFLOPS, because the sheer number of units compensates for the lower clock.

Ray tracing hardware: AMD has 12 RT cores, NVIDIA has 40. NVIDIA also has 160 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the AMD specification. The tensor cores enable AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD part cannot accelerate through dedicated hardware.

Memory architecture differs by type and bus. AMD uses LPDDR5X on a 128 bit bus, a configuration suited to low power and integration. NVIDIA uses GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus, which provides the much higher 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) far exceeds the AMD memory clock of 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective).

The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part has no bus interface listed. The NVIDIA part is classified as IGP slot width, indicating an integrated form factor typical of mobile workstations.

Both GPUs are in the console GPU or mobile workstation generation families respectively. The AMD part is classified under Console GPU (AMD) generation, while the NVIDIA part falls under Ada-MW generation, with predecessors and successors in the mobile workstation line.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in power efficiency and density. Its 28 W TDP is 28% of the NVIDIA part's 100 W TDP. The 178 mm² die is 40% smaller than the 294 mm² NVIDIA die. The higher boost clock of 2700 MHz indicates a design tuned for burst performance within a tight power envelope. The 16 GB memory capacity is 4 GB more than the NVIDIA part, which matters for workloads that need capacity over bandwidth. The AMD part also has a higher transistor density, 142.6M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm².

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Mobile Ada Generation wins in raw compute, bandwidth, and feature set. The 15.82 TFLOPS FP32 output is 1.9 times the AMD part. The 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 3.6 times higher. The 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs all dwarf the AMD configuration. The 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads. The pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 247.2 GTexel/s both exceed the AMD part.

Use-case split based on the recorded data: the AMD part suits low-power, compact systems where 16 GB of memory capacity and a 28 W thermal budget are priorities. The NVIDIA part suits performance-focused mobile workstations where compute throughput, memory bandwidth, tensor acceleration, and ray tracing capability are required. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions come strictly from the specification differences in the database.