AMD Instinct MI300 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark entries for either the AMD Instinct MI300 or the NVIDIA H20. The average benchmark score for both accelerators is zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Consequently, there are no measured performance deltas, no win counts for either part, and no percentile rankings beyond a neutral 50th percentile placement for both against all GPUs.

Without benchmark data, the analysis must rely entirely on the specification sheets. The Instinct MI300 delivers a higher FP32 compute rating at 47.87 TFLOPS compared to the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS, a difference of approximately 8.33 TFLOPS, or roughly 21 percent higher rated single-precision throughput. In FP16, the relationship reverses in terms of rated capability: the MI300 posts 47.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The H20 therefore carries a substantially higher FP16 rating, about 65 percent above the MI300's FP16 figure. This indicates the H20 is rated to process reduced-precision workloads at a faster rate, while the MI300 maintains equal rated throughput across FP16 and FP32.

Texture rate also favors the MI300. The AMD part achieves 1,496.0 GTexel/s against the H20's 617.8 GTexel/s, a gap of 878.2 GTexel/s. That places the MI300 roughly 2.4 times higher in texture fill capability. Pixel rate, however, is effectively absent on the MI300, listed at 0 MPixel/s, while the H20 delivers 47.52 GPixel/s. Neither device has display outputs, so pixel throughput is not a meaningful metric for real-world rendering workloads, but the specification difference remains recorded.

Memory bandwidth strongly favors the MI300. The AMD accelerator carries 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth from its 8192-bit HBM3 interface, while the H20 provides 4.03 TB/s from a 6144-bit HBM3 bus. The MI300 leads by 1.29 TB/s, approximately 32 percent higher. Memory capacity also differs: 128 GB on the MI300 versus 96 GB on the H20, a 32 GB advantage for the AMD part.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The H20 runs at a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost of 1980 MHz, while the MI300 sits at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The H20's base clock is 830 MHz higher, and its boost is 280 MHz higher. The MI300 nonetheless achieves higher rated FP32 and texture throughput, which indicates the AMD design compensates for lower clocks with a larger execution resource pool.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has the higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300 is rated at 47.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 is rated at 39.54 TFLOPS. The MI300 leads by 8.33 TFLOPS, about 21 percent higher.

Q: How does FP16 throughput compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA H20 is rated at 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, versus 47.87 TFLOPS on the MI300 with a 1:1 ratio. The H20's FP16 rating is approximately 65 percent higher.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The MI300 has 128 GB of HBM3 with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 with 4.03 TB/s across a 6144-bit bus. The MI300 leads by 32 GB capacity and 1.29 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has higher clock speeds?

A: The NVIDIA H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The AMD MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The H20 is 830 MHz higher at base and 280 MHz higher at boost.

Q: Do either of these accelerators support display outputs?

A: Neither device has display outputs. Both are listed as "No outputs" in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The MI300 contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the H20 contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The MI300 has 73,000 million more transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architecture families. The AMD Instinct MI300 uses the CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the NVIDIA H20 uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI300 packs 153,000 million transistors onto a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The H20 uses 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, a density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The MI300 die is 203 mm² larger and carries 73,000 million more transistors.

The execution pipelines are structured differently. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 texture mapping units, and no ROPs (0). The H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The MI300 also has no listed tensor cores, while the H20 includes 312 tensor cores. Shading unit count favors the MI300 by 4,096 units, and TMU count favors the MI300 by 568 units. The H20's 24 ROPs give it a defined pixel output stage, whereas the MI300's ROP count is zero.

Memory subsystems differ in bus width and capacity. The MI300 uses an 8192-bit HBM3 interface with 128 GB of memory, while the H20 uses a 6144-bit HBM3 interface with 96 GB. The MI300's wider bus drives its higher 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. Both use HBM3 memory type, but the effective memory clocks are close: 5.2 Gbps effective on the MI300 versus 5.3 Gbps effective on the H20. The bandwidth gap comes primarily from the bus width difference rather than memory clock.

Power delivery and physical format are not identical. The MI300 has a 600 W TDP, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and is a 267 mm long, 111 mm high PCIe card. The H20 has a 500 W TDP, is an SXM Module form factor, and has no listed dimensions or power connectors. The suggested PSU ratings are 1000 W for the MI300 and 900 W for the H20.

API support is absent on both parts. Neither accelerator lists DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, consistent with their server-oriented design. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, so host connectivity is the same generation and lane count.

Release timing differs by just over a year. The MI300 was released on January 3, 2023, while the H20 was released on January 31, 2024. The H20's production status is marked as Active, and its predecessor and successor are listed as Server Ada and Server Blackwell, respectively. The MI300 lists its predecessor as Radeon Instinct with no successor recorded. The generation fields read "Instinct (MIx)" for the AMD part and "Server Hopper (Hxx)" for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports different conclusions depending on the workload emphasis. For FP32 compute, the AMD Instinct MI300 is the stronger choice on paper, with 47.87 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS on the H20. Its texture rate of 1,496.0 GTexel/s is more than double the H20's 617.8 GTexel/s. Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the MI300: 128 GB and 5.32 TB/s against 96 GB and 4.03 TB/s. These figures point to the MI300 as the higher-throughput device for single-precision and memory-bound operations.

For FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA H20 has the higher rating at 79.07 TFLOPS versus the MI300's 47.87 TFLOPS. The H20 also carries 312 tensor cores, which the MI300 does not list, and it operates at substantially higher clocks: 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The H20's lower 500 W TDP and SXM Module form factor indicate a different deployment profile than the MI300's 600 W PCIe card with two 8-pin connectors.

The MI300 uses a larger die, 1017 mm² versus 814 mm², and more transistors, 153,000 million versus 80,000 million. That resource advantage shows up in shading units, texture units, memory bus width, and memory capacity. The H20 counters with higher clocks, tensor cores, and a higher FP16 rating, plus a smaller physical footprint as an SXM module.

Neither device has benchmark scores in the database, so any selection guidance must rest on the specification differences. The data indicates the MI300 is the higher-resource accelerator for FP32, texture, and memory capacity, while the H20 is the higher-rated device for FP16 throughput and operates at higher clock speeds with tensor core support. The absence of measured performance means the rated specifications are the only comparative evidence available.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every major specification field. The chip names are distinct: Aqua Vanjaram for the MI300 and GH100 for the H20. Architectures also differ, CDNA 3.0 versus Hopper, as do generations, Instinct (MIx) versus Server Hopper (Hxx).

Process nodes and foundries match at 5 nm and TSMC. Transistor counts differ, with the MI300 at 153,000 million and the H20 at 80,000 million. Die sizes differ, 1017 mm² versus 814 mm², and transistor density differs, 150.4 million per mm² versus 98.3 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The MI300 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. The H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. Memory clocks are close, 5.2 Gbps effective versus 5.3 Gbps effective, but memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the MI300: 128 GB versus 96 GB, 8192-bit versus 6144-bit, and 5.32 TB/s versus 4.03 TB/s.

Compute unit counts differ. The MI300 has 14,080 shading units, 880 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H20 lists 312 tensor cores, while the MI300 lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on the MI300 and 47.52 GPixel/s on the H20. Texture rate is 1,496.0 GTexel/s on the MI300 and 617.8 GTexel/s on the H20. FP32 is 47.87 TFLOPS on the MI300 and 39.54 TFLOPS on the H20. FP16 is 47.87 TFLOPS (1:1) on the MI300 and 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) on the H20.

Power ratings differ: 600 W TDP for the MI300 versus 500 W for the H20. The MI300 uses two 8-pin power connectors; the H20 lists none. Suggested PSU is 1000 W for the MI300 and 900 W for the H20. The MI300 is a 267 mm long, 111 mm high card; the H20 is an SXM Module with no dimensions recorded. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and neither has display outputs. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support are all marked N/A for both. Release dates are January 3, 2023, for the MI300 and January 31, 2024, for the H20. The H20 is Active in production, while the MI300's production status is not recorded.