AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. Neither device has any benchmark scores listed, and the head-to-head comparison array is empty. As a result, there are no exact performance deltas to cite for rasterization, ray tracing, or compute workloads. Both GPUs share the same percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, with each sitting at the 50th percentile, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. This absence of measured data means any performance comparison must rely entirely on architectural and specification analysis rather than empirical results.

The lack of benchmark entries is notable given that both products are listed as Active in production status. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU carries a release date of 2024-12-31, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has a release date of 2025-06-04. Despite the gap in release timing, neither has accumulated measurable benchmark data in the database. The wins counter shows zero for both devices, confirming that no comparative testing has been recorded. Readers should interpret all performance statements in this analysis as derived from hardware specifications, not from direct measurement.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 1.93 times the 4.301 TFLOPS offered by the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. In FP16 compute, the two trade places depending on architecture: the AMD part sustains 8.294 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part reaches 8.602 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: Both GPUs use a 128-bit memory bus and LPDDR5X memory. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has 16 GB of memory with a bandwidth of 119.9 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The AMD part leads in both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU operates with a base clock of 561 MHz and a boost clock of 1400 MHz. The AMD part has a significantly higher boost ceiling, which contributes to its higher pixel and texture throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in their API support. This indicates feature-level parity for modern graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing hardware?

A: Both GPUs list 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU also includes 48 tensor cores, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU does not list a tensor core count.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has recorded dimensions of 272 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 14 mm in width. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU has no listed dimensions, slot width, or power connectors in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture using the Hawk Point chip, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture with the GA10B chip. These architectural choices drive distinct design priorities.

The process nodes differ substantially. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The AMD chip is smaller at 178 mm², while the NVIDIA chip measures 200 mm². Transistor counts show a clear difference: the AMD chip integrates 25,390 million transistors, while the NVIDIA chip has an unknown transistor count. The AMD chip achieves a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter; no density figure is recorded for the NVIDIA chip.

Compute unit organization differs markedly. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This means NVIDIA packs twice the shading units but half the ROPs. Both have 12 RT cores, but only NVIDIA lists 48 tensor cores. The tensor cores indicate support for AI-accelerated workloads, a feature absent from the AMD specifications.

The FP16 execution ratio reveals another architectural split. AMD executes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput at 8.294 TFLOPS. NVIDIA executes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate to reach 8.602 TFLOPS. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture can process FP16 workloads faster relative to its FP32 baseline, while the AMD architecture treats both formats with equal throughput.

Memory architecture is similar in bus width but different in implementation. Both use 128-bit LPDDR5X, but the AMD part runs its memory at 937 MHz with 7.5 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA part runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed. This results in a bandwidth gap of 119.9 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The AMD part also has a larger memory pool at 16 GB versus 12 GB.

Power characteristics differ in an interesting direction. The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is rated at 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is rated at 40 W TDP. Despite the higher power envelope, the NVIDIA part delivers lower FP32 performance, lower pixel rate, and lower texture rate. The NVIDIA part has no power connector listed, while the AMD part explicitly lists "None" for power connectors.

The production nodes and foundries also affect the physical design. The AMD chip uses TSMC's 4 nm process, which is a more advanced node than Samsung's 8 nm used by NVIDIA. The smaller process node likely contributes to the AMD chip's lower die size and higher transistor density.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU and NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU differ across several specification fields. The most direct comparisons are listed below.

Manufacturer and architecture: AMD versus NVIDIA. The AMD part uses RDNA 3.0, the NVIDIA part uses Ampere.

Process node and foundry: 4 nm TSMC versus 8 nm Samsung.

Transistors: 25,390 million versus unknown.

Die size: 178 mm² versus 200 mm².

Clocks: Base 800 MHz versus 561 MHz. Boost 2700 MHz versus 1400 MHz. Memory 937 MHz (7.5 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity: 16 GB versus 12 GB, both LPDDR5X with 128-bit bus.

Memory bandwidth: 119.9 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 768 versus 1536.

TMUs: 48 versus 48, equal.

ROPs: 32 versus 16.

RT cores: 12 versus 12, equal.

Tensor cores: Not listed versus 48.

Pixel rate: 86.40 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: 129.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s.

FP32: 8.294 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS.

FP16: 8.294 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 28 W versus 40 W.

Display outputs: 1x USB Type-C versus no outputs.

Dimensions: None listed versus 272 mm x 116 mm x 14 mm.

Release date: 2024-12-31 versus 2025-06-04.

Launch MSRP: None for the AMD part; the NVIDIA part has a launch MSRP of 449 USD.

Generation: Console GPU (AMD) versus Console GPU (Nintendo).

Chip: Hawk Point versus GA10B.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the specification data, the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU holds advantages in several key areas. Its FP32 compute throughput of 8.294 TFLOPS is nearly double the NVIDIA part's 4.301 TFLOPS, which suggests a significant lead in general-purpose shader workloads that rely on single-precision math. The pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s indicates a large advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw. The texture rate of 129.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s doubles the texel processing capacity, which benefits scenes with dense texture sampling. The AMD part also provides more memory bandwidth at 119.9 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, plus a larger memory pool at 16 GB versus 12 GB. This combination supports higher resolution textures and larger working sets.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU counters in a few specific areas. Its FP16 throughput of 8.602 TFLOPS exceeds the AMD part's 8.294 TFLOPS, meaning mixed-precision workloads that take advantage of the 2:1 FP16 rate will run faster on NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has twice the shading units at 1536 versus 768, which can help in workloads that are not purely throughput-limited but benefit from wider SIMT occupancy. The 48 tensor cores give NVIDIA a hardware path for AI inference and DLSS-style features that the AMD part lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part also has a lower base clock at 561 MHz versus 800 MHz, which may indicate a design tuned for sustained low-power operation, though its TDP is actually higher at 40 W versus 28 W.

The physical form factor also differentiates the two. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has recorded dimensions of 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm, while the AMD part has no dimensions listed. The NVIDIA part has no display outputs, while the AMD part includes a single USB Type-C output.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU is the stronger compute and rasterization part based on the recorded specifications. Its FP32 throughput is 1.93 times that of the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU, its pixel rate is 3.86 times higher, and its texture rate is 1.93 times higher. It also offers 33% more memory capacity and 17% more memory bandwidth. These advantages make it the better choice for frame rate, resolution scaling, and texture-heavy workloads.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has specific strengths that suit a different set of tasks. Its FP16 output is 3.7% higher than the AMD part, and its 48 tensor cores provide AI acceleration capabilities that the AMD part cannot match. The higher shading unit count at 1536 versus 768 gives it a different compute profile, though the measured throughput numbers indicate the AMD part still delivers more raw FP32 performance. The NVIDIA part also has a defined physical footprint and a launch MSRP of 449 USD, whereas the AMD part has neither dimensions nor a launch MSRP listed.

For a builder prioritizing raw shader performance, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the data points to the AMD Ryzen Z2 GPU. For a scenario requiring FP16 throughput or tensor-based features, the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU holds the recorded edge. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest on architectural and specification analysis alone. The AMD part's higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 1400 MHz, combined with its higher pixel and texture rates, reinforces its position as the higher-throughput device. The NVIDIA part's lower pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 67.20 GTexel/s indicate it is not designed for the same level of fill-rate demand. Both GPUs are Active in the database, but their roles appear distinct: the AMD part as a compact high-throughput console GPU, and the NVIDIA part as a larger, feature-specific console GPU with tensor hardware.