OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen Z2 Go Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£550PassMark benchmark result:12189N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.3 GHzCPU socket:FP7TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen Z2 Go Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.7

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models
Score components

90%

5.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 50% of processors
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

6.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

9.1

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 51% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £550

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen Z2 Go

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components:

60%

4.9

Performance

18%

6.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

9.1

Integrated Graphics

5.7
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen Z2 Go has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Overall score

40%

7.6

Price

6.3
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
handheld
CPU socket
FP7
CPU socket
FP7
▼ Worse than 48% of models
This processor uses the FP7 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 47.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
▲ Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.3 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.3 GHz
▼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.3 GHz which is higher than that of 48.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 59% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.0 GHz which is lower than that of 59.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
6 nm
Semiconductor size
6 nm
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 6 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 82.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
Foundry
TSMC 6 nm
▲ Better than 81% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 6 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 81.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
▼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
★ Better than 94% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
▲ Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
▲ Better than 84% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 84.4% of processors and equal to 3.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
AMD Radeon Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 680M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 680M
★ Better than 92% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 680M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 91.9% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
▲ Better than 87% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode)
▲ Better than 82% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 81.6% of processors and equal to 3.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Base power (PL1)
28 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen Z2 Go vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt R
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.33x more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    4 MB/core
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 50% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    6 nm
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 23.3% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,082
    ▲ Better than 65% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,082 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,082 vs 2,500
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    June 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, SME, TSME, Pluton
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, SME, TSME, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, SME, TSME, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 23.3% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,082
    ▲ Better than 65% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,082 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,082 vs 2,500
  • 15.4% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,698
    ▲ Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,698 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,698 vs 1,471
  • 18.2% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    5,708
    ▲ Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (5,708 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    5,708 vs 4,829
  • 15.3% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    12,189
    ▲ Better than 53% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (12,189 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    12,189 vs 10,572.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Rembrandt R
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake).
    Rembrandt R vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.33x more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    4 MB/core
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 50% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    6 nm
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (6 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    6 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 6 nm
    ▲ Better than 81% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 6 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.65x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    13.1 billion
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (13.1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    13.1 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5-6400 MHz
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 680M
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 680M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 680M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    800 MHz
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 37.8% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    28 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    28 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 26.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    2051
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2051 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,051 vs 2,791
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Z2 Go is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 17.5% larger die size
    Die size
    208 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (208 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    208 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2.2x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen Z2 Go is more expensive than the average processor (£550 vs £250).
    £550 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 26.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    2051
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2051 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,051 vs 2,791
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 17.5% larger die size
    Die size
    208 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (208 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    208 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • 5 °C lower TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
The Phawx
≈ estimated
30/06/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks, battery and software tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z2 Go models are one to skip; the Z1E version is the better buy.
7.0
GameTechPlanet
≈ estimated
24/06/2025
Hands-on review · SteamOS, performance and price
Verdict
AMD Ryzen Z2 Go is a likeable handheld with a big screen and SteamOS, but it is priced too high against the Steam Deck.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen Z2 Go - CPU Benchmarks
L
leclaireur.fnac.com
18/11/2025
Summary of the review
Lenovo Legion Go S Review: From Ugly Duckling to Swan in a Single Step
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
26/08/2025
Summary of the review
Lenovo Legion Go S Review - Gaming handheld is much faster thanks to SteamOS
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen Z2 Go

  • Better performance-per-watt than the original Steam Deck at 15W TDP
  • Significant performance boost when paired with SteamOS compared to Windows
  • Impressive gaming performance for a 4-core chip, trailing the Z1 Extreme by only ~10% in some titles
  • Supports modern features like USB 4.0 and LPDDR5x-6400 RAM
  • Excellent for older games that can run at high frame rates with low power draw

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen Z2 Go

  • Uses older Zen 3+ and RDNA 2 architecture despite being part of the 'Z2' series
  • High initial MSRP makes it difficult to recommend over discounted Z1 Extreme devices
  • Struggles with modern, graphically intensive AAA titles compared to the Z2 Extreme
  • Limited to 4 cores and 8 threads, which may impact long-term support for future games
  • Confusing branding as it is a refresh of older chips rather than a new architectural leap

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go is a budget-focused processor for handheld gaming consoles, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads based on the Zen 3+ architecture with a max boost clock of 4.3 GHz. It integrates a capable Radeon 680M iGPU with 12 RDNA 2 compute units and supports modern connectivity like USB4 and LPDDR5-6400 memory within a configurable TDP of 15-30W. Main pros include its affordability for entry-level handhelds and a significant graphics upgrade over the original Z1 due to the higher core count. However, potential cons include its reliance on older CPU and GPU architectures compared to the Zen 5/RDNA 3.5 found in its Z2 Extreme siblings, resulting in lower overall performance for demanding AAA titles.

Compare AMD Ryzen Z2 Go with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen Z2 Go and other processors

No results found