AMD Instinct MI300A vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a stark asymmetry between these two accelerators. The AMD Instinct MI300A holds no benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL carries a single recorded score. That score, from the Geekbench OpenCL test, is 334,891 points. With zero benchmark results for the MI300A, the database cannot assign it any wins. The H200 NVL, by contrast, holds a 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs, meaning its single recorded score places it above every other entry in the database.

The MI300A’s percentile ranking of 50 suggests it sits at the median of all GPUs tracked, but this figure is derived from an empty benchmark set. No measured workload confirms that position. The H200 NVL’s nearest rivals provide context for its standing. It trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4 percent, with that rival scoring 369,831. It also sits 3.1 percent behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X, the H200 NVL leads by 5.3 percent, as that card scores 317,994. The NVIDIA L40S trails by 13.2 percent with a score of 295,763.

For any use-case split, the data only supports one conclusion: the H200 NVL has measurable compute performance in a general-purpose OpenCL workload, while the MI300A has no recorded measurements to compare. The MI300A’s architectural traits, such as its unified memory design, may serve specific workloads, but the database contains no numbers to validate those claims. The H200 NVL’s percentile position indicates it outperforms the vast majority of tracked GPUs in the one test where data exists.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators diverge fundamentally in their silicon and packaging. The MI300A uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a density of 98.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The MI300A packs nearly twice the transistor count and a larger die, suggesting a more complex computational array.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The MI300A carries 128 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The H200 NVL carries 141 GB of HBM3e across a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s. The MI300A has the wider bus and higher raw bandwidth, while the H200 NVL has more capacity and a faster memory type. Clock speeds also diverge: the MI300A runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The H200 NVL runs at a 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, with memory at 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The H200 NVL starts at a higher base clock but boosts lower than the MI300A.

Compute resources reveal different design philosophies. The MI300A has 14,592 shading units and 912 texture mapping units, with no ROPs listed and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. Its texture rate is 1,915.2 GTexel/s. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 942.5 GTexel/s. The H200 NVL also lists 528 tensor cores, while the MI300A lists none. FP32 throughput is close: the MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS, the H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS. The H200 NVL additionally records FP16 performance at 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1), while the MI300A has no FP16 figure.

Physical and power attributes also differ. The MI300A is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a 750 W TDP, requiring a suggested 1150 W PSU. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS connector, a 600 W TDP, and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The H200 NVL measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MI300A has no listed dimensions. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces and have no display outputs. Neither supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, as both are compute-focused accelerators.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the database is empty. No direct comparison tests exist between the MI300A and the H200 NVL. The only recorded benchmark for either product is the H200 NVL’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891. That single data point establishes the H200 NVL’s position against its nearest rivals, but it offers no direct comparison to the MI300A.

The H200 NVL’s score places it 3.1 percent behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482, and 9.4 percent behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, which scores 369,831. It leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3 percent, with that card scoring 317,994, and leads the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2 percent, with that card scoring 295,763. These deltas quantify the H200 NVL’s standing within the database’s broader GPU rankings.

For the MI300A, no measured workload exists. The database lists zero benchmark entries for it, and its average benchmark score is zero. Any statement about its relative performance would lack numerical support. The H200 NVL’s 100th percentile ranking confirms it outperforms all other GPUs with recorded scores in the database, including the four nearest rivals listed. The MI300A’s 50th percentile ranking is a placeholder derived from an empty benchmark set, not a measured result.

FAQ

Q: What is the only recorded benchmark score for these two accelerators?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891. The AMD Instinct MI300A has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891, which is 5.3 percent higher than the MI300X’s score of 317,994.

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI300A delivers 61.29 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS. The MI300A leads by a narrow margin.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths of the two accelerators?

A: The MI300A has 128 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which accelerator has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The MI300A has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The H200 NVL has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

Q: Do either of these accelerators support display outputs or standard graphics APIs?

A: No. Both the MI300A and the H200 NVL have no display outputs, and both list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node and foundry are identical: both use a 5 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts diverge substantially, with the MI300A at 153,000 million and the H200 NVL at 80,000 million. Die size also differs, with the MI300A at 1017 mm² and the H200 NVL at 814 mm². Transistor density follows, with the MI300A at 150.4 million per mm² and the H200 NVL at 98.3 million per mm².

Clock speeds vary. The MI300A has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The H200 NVL has a 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the MI300A runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), the H200 NVL at 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). Memory capacity favors the H200 NVL at 141 GB versus 128 GB, while memory type differs with HBM3 on the MI300A and HBM3e on the H200 NVL. Bus width favors the MI300A at 8192 bit versus 6144 bit. Bandwidth favors the MI300A at 5.32 TB/s versus 4.89 TB/s.

Shading units favor the H200 NVL at 16,896 versus 14,592. Texture mapping units favor the MI300A at 912 versus 528. ROPs exist only on the H200 NVL with 24, while the MI300A lists zero. Tensor cores exist only on the H200 NVL with 528, while the MI300A lists none. Pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s on the H200 NVL and 0 MPixel/s on the MI300A. Texture rate favors the MI300A at 1,915.2 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s. FP32 output is close, with the MI300A at 61.29 TFLOPS and the H200 NVL at 60.32 TFLOPS. FP16 output is recorded only for the H200 NVL at 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power draw and physical design differ. The MI300A has a 750 W TDP and uses no power connectors, while the H200 NVL has a 600 W TDP and uses an 8-pin EPS connector. Suggested PSU ratings are 1150 W for the MI300A and 1000 W for the H200 NVL. Slot width differs with OAM Module for the MI300A and dual-slot for the H200 NVL. The H200 NVL has recorded dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the MI300A has no listed dimensions. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and have no display outputs. Release dates differ, with the MI300A released on 2023-12-05 and the H200 NVL on 2024-11-17. The H200 NVL lists a production status of Active, while the MI300A has none recorded.