AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two parts, but the comparison is complicated by the absence of a common benchmark suite. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no benchmark scores in the database, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 has a complete set of nine recorded tests. The A400's average benchmark score is 6078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (a 0% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (a 0.6% deficit for the A400), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (a 1% advantage for the A400). These tight margins indicate that the A400 sits in a narrow performance band where 1% swings separate competitors.

The A400's best recorded result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 22844. Its Geekbench Vulkan result is close behind at 22237, showing that the card sustains similar throughput across both compute APIs. PassMark scores tell a different story. The DirectX 9 result is 87, DirectX 10 is 32, DirectX 11 is 37, and DirectX 12 is 27. The PassMark G3D score is 5983, while the GPU compute score is 2557. The DirectX 12 score being the lowest of the four DirectX tests suggests that the A400's Ampere architecture does not translate its raw compute capability into newer API raster workloads as effectively as legacy APIs.

The Ryzen Z2 GPU, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile rank is 50, which is higher than the A400's 35, but this percentile appears without supporting benchmark data. The database thus presents an asymmetric picture: one part is fully characterized by measured results, the other is characterized only by its specifications and a percentile estimate. Any head-to-head comparison must rely on the specification deltas alone, since there is no shared test result to anchor the analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in every category where measured data exists, simply because it is the only part with recorded results. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and Vulkan score of 22237 indicate strong general compute performance for a 50 W card. Its PassMark G3D score of 5983 is respectable for the workstation segment, and the 87 in DirectX 9 shows that legacy raster workloads remain serviceable. The A400's 24 tensor cores and 6 RT cores provide hardware acceleration for AI inference and ray tracing, features that are absent from the Ryzen Z2 GPU's specification sheet.

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU wins in areas that the A400 cannot contest. It has 16 GB of LPDDR5X memory compared to the A400's 4 GB of GDDR6, a fourfold capacity advantage. Its memory bandwidth is 119.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, a 24.9% lead. The Z2 GPU also has higher raw throughput figures: 8.294 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.706 TFLOPS, and 129.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s is more than triple the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s. These are specification wins, not measured benchmark wins, but they point to a clear capability difference in fill-rate-bound and texture-bound workloads.

The A400 counters with a higher base clock of 1417 MHz versus 800 MHz, though the Z2 GPU's boost clock of 2700 MHz exceeds the A400's 1762 MHz. The A400 also delivers more display outputs with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus a single USB Type-C on the Z2 GPU. For multi-monitor workstation setups, the A400 is clearly the more practical option.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU uses the Hawk Point chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per mm². The density gap is stark: the AMD part packs more than three times the transistors per square millimeter.

The compute layouts differ substantially. Both have 768 shading units, but the Z2 GPU has 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the A400 has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Z2 GPU doubles the TMU and ROP counts. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the Z2 GPU has 12 RT cores, the A400 has 6. The A400 has 24 tensor cores, while the Z2 GPU lists none. This means the A400 is the only one of the two with dedicated hardware for tensor operations, a relevant consideration for workloads that leverage TensorRT or similar frameworks.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The Z2 GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, while the A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Z2 GPU's memory clock is listed at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective, while the A400 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. Despite the A400's faster memory clock, the Z2 GPU's wider bus gives it higher total bandwidth. The Z2 GPU's power envelope is 28 W, well below the A400's 50 W, and it requires no power connectors. The A400 also requires no power connectors but has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Specification Differences

The two parts diverge on nearly every specification field. The Z2 GPU is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, the A400 on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Transistor counts are 25,390 million versus 8,700 million, and die sizes are 178 mm² versus 200 mm². Base clocks are 800 MHz versus 1417 MHz, while boost clocks are 2700 MHz versus 1762 MHz. Memory capacity is 16 GB LPDDR5X versus 4 GB GDDR6, with bus widths of 128 bit versus 64 bit and bandwidth of 119.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

The Z2 GPU has 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs, the A400 has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Z2 GPU has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores; the A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. Pixel rates are 86.40 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 129.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 8.294 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, with both listing FP16 at the same 1:1 ratio as FP32.

The TDP is 28 W for the Z2 GPU and 50 W for the A400. The A400 is single-slot with dimensions of 163 mm by 69 mm, while the Z2 GPU lists no dimensions. The A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the Z2 GPU lists no bus interface. Display outputs are 1x USB Type-C for the Z2 GPU and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A400. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The release dates differ by roughly eight months. The NVIDIA RTX A400 was released on 2024-04-15, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU was released on 2024-12-31. Both are marked as Active in production status. The A400 has a predecessor listed as Quadro Turing and a successor as Workstation Ada; the Z2 GPU lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU, at 8.294 TFLOPS, which is more than three times the NVIDIA RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5X, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX A400, which has 24 tensor cores. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU lists no tensor cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is ranked in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is in the 35th percentile. However, the Z2 GPU has no recorded benchmark scores to support its percentile.

Q: How do display outputs compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU provides a single USB Type-C output.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload requirements. For compute-heavy tasks that rely on raw shader throughput, texture fill, and pixel fill, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger part on paper. Its 8.294 TFLOPS FP32, 129.6 GTexel/s, 86.40 GPixel/s, 16 GB memory capacity, and 119.9 GB/s bandwidth all exceed the NVIDIA RTX A400 by wide margins. Its 12 RT cores also outnumber the A400's 6. The Z2 GPU's 28 W TDP and 4 nm process indicate higher efficiency per watt, though no efficiency measurements are recorded.

For workstation tasks that require multiple display outputs, tensor core acceleration, and a compact single-slot form factor, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the practical choice. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor configurations that the Z2 GPU's single USB Type-C cannot match. Its 24 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for AI workloads, and its 250 W suggested PSU requirement fits into a wide range of existing workstation builds. The A400 also has the advantage of actual measured results: its average benchmark score of 6078 places it in the 35th percentile, with nearest rivals within a 1% margin.

The Ryzen Z2 GPU's 50th percentile ranking, despite lacking benchmark scores, suggests the database places it above the A400 overall. But the absence of measured data makes that ranking difficult to verify. The A400's recorded results show a card that is competitive with the GeForce MX230 and Radeon 760M, while the Z2 GPU's specifications indicate a part that should outperform those same rivals in raw throughput. The choice between the two comes down to whether the workload prioritizes compute density and memory capacity, favoring the Z2 GPU, or tensor acceleration and multi-display workstation ergonomics, favoring the A400.