AMD Instinct MI300X vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two accelerators into very different performance classes. The AMD Instinct MI300X holds a dominant position in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 317,994 points, which places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA H20, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, sits at the 50th percentile, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. For any workload captured by the Geekbench OpenCL metric, the MI300X is the clear performer, and the H20 cannot be positioned against it with measured data.

The MI300X's nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA data center parts, and the deltas are telling. It sits 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891, and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482. Against the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237), the MI300X leads by 7.5% and 10.7% respectively. This places the MI300X in the upper tier of current accelerators, just shy of the very top H200 and B200 results but clearly ahead of the L40S and RTX 6000 Ada. The H20, with no benchmark entries, has no comparable positioning.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The MI300X is the part for compute workloads where OpenCL performance matters and where the highest throughput per card is required. Its 192 GB of HBM3 memory and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth support large model residency. The H20, with 96 GB of HBM3 and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, targets a different capacity class, but without measured benchmark results, its relative compute performance cannot be stated from the data. The recorded numbers show one accelerator with a verified high score and another with no verified score at all.

The MI300X also wins on raw peak throughput specifications. Its FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than double the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) slightly exceeds the H20's 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1). Texture rate on the MI300X is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s on the H20. These are large gaps in measured peak capability. The H20 counters with a higher base clock (1830 MHz vs 1000 MHz) and a slightly higher boost clock (1980 MHz vs 2100 MHz, actually the MI300X boosts higher), and it has tensor cores (312) while the MI300X lists none in its specifications. But the MI300X's sheer scale of shader units (19,456 vs 9,984) and TMUs (1,216 vs 312) drives its advantage in the recorded benchmark.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice is straightforward. The AMD Instinct MI300X is the accelerator with a proven benchmark result, a 317,994 Geekbench OpenCL score, and a 100th percentile ranking. The NVIDIA H20 has no benchmark scores in the database, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile placement. Anyone selecting between these two for compute workloads must weigh the MI300X's verified performance against the H20's lack of measured results.

The MI300X delivers more memory (192 GB vs 96 GB), more bandwidth (5.32 TB/s vs 4.03 TB/s), a wider memory bus (8192 bit vs 6144 bit), and double the FP32 throughput. It also has a much larger die (1017 mm² vs 814 mm²) and more transistors (153,000 million vs 80,000 million). The H20 uses less power (500 W vs 750 W) and has a lower suggested PSU rating (900 W vs 1150 W), which makes it the more power-conscious option on paper. But the performance data does not support the H20 as a compute leader.

For builders prioritizing measured compute performance, the MI300X is the only one of the two with a benchmark score, and that score places it among the top accelerators in the database. The H20's role cannot be established from the available data. Its specifications suggest a capable server part, but without a recorded score, it cannot be recommended over the MI300X on performance grounds. The verdict from the database is clear: the MI300X is the verified performer, the H20 is an unverified alternative with lower peak specs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two accelerators. The wins count for both is zero. This means no direct comparison test has been recorded. What exists instead is a single benchmark score for the MI300X and no scores for the H20.

The MI300X's Geekbench OpenCL score of 317,994 is the only measured performance figure available. Against its nearest rivals, this score positions it 5% behind the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482). It leads the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) by 10.7%. These deltas show that the MI300X is competitive with the top NVIDIA data center parts, trailing the two newest ones by single-digit percentages and beating the previous generation by a similar margin.

The H20 has no benchmark scores to compare. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. This absence of data means no head-to-head analysis can be performed with the H20 as a measured competitor. The only comparison available is between the MI300X's score and its own nearest rivals, all of which are NVIDIA parts other than the H20.

The specification comparison fills some of the gap. The MI300X's FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS is 106.7% higher than the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS is 3.4% higher than the H20's 79.07 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 32% higher on the MI300X (5.32 TB/s vs 4.03 TB/s). These are the largest measured deltas between the two parts, and they align with the MI300X's benchmark dominance.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded benchmark score for the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The MI300X scores 317,994 in Geekbench OpenCL, which places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The H20 has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: How does the MI300X compare to its nearest NVIDIA rivals?

A: The MI300X trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) by 5% and the NVIDIA B200 (345,482) by 8%, while leading the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) by 10.7%.

Q: Which accelerator has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The MI300X has 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth and an 8192-bit bus. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth and a 6144-bit bus.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which part has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 lists 312 tensor cores. The AMD MI300X specifications do not list tensor cores.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural families. The MI300X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture with the chip codename Aqua Vanjaram, part of the Instinct (MIx) generation. The H20 uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the MI300X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The H20 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a density of 98.3 million per mm². The MI300X is the larger and denser chip by a wide margin.

The MI300X uses 19,456 shader units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and lists no ROPs or tensor cores. Its pixel rate is recorded as zero. The H20 uses 9,984 shader units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. Its pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s. The MI300X's texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s, versus 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20. These differences reflect distinct design priorities: the MI300X maximizes compute and texture throughput, while the H20 includes fixed-function rendering units (ROPs) and tensor acceleration that the MI300X does not list.

Memory architecture differs as well. The MI300X uses HBM3 with a 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The H20 also uses HBM3 but with a narrower 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The MI300X has double the memory capacity (192 GB vs 96 GB) and 32% more bandwidth.

Clock behavior differs. The H20 has a higher base clock (1830 MHz vs 1000 MHz) but a lower boost clock (1980 MHz vs 2100 MHz). The MI300X boosts higher, which contributes to its peak throughput advantage. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the bus interface, and both have no display outputs and no supported graphics APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan are all listed as N/A). The MI300X uses an OAM Module slot width, while the H20 uses an SXM Module.

Power and cooling requirements differ. The MI300X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested PSU rating of 1150 W, with no power connectors listed. The H20 has a 500 W TDP and a suggested PSU rating of 900 W. The MI300X's power draw is 50% higher than the H20's, which is consistent with its larger die and higher peak throughput.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two parts, based on the recorded data:

• Shading units: MI300X has 19,456; H20 has 9,984.
• TMUs: MI300X has 1,216; H20 has 312.
• ROPs: MI300X has 0; H20 has 24.
• Tensor cores: MI300X lists none; H20 has 312.
• Base clock: MI300X runs at 1000 MHz; H20 runs at 1830 MHz.
• Boost clock: MI300X boosts to 2100 MHz; H20 boosts to 1980 MHz.
• Memory clock: MI300X runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective); H20 runs at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: MI300X has 192 GB; H20 has 96 GB.
• Memory bus width: MI300X uses 8192 bit; H20 uses 6144 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: MI300X delivers 5.32 TB/s; H20 delivers 4.03 TB/s.
• FP32 performance: MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS; H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1); H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1).
• Pixel rate: MI300X is 0 MPixel/s; H20 is 47.52 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: MI300X is 2,553.6 GTexel/s; H20 is 617.8 GTexel/s.
• Transistor count: MI300X has 153,000 million; H20 has 80,000 million.
• Die size: MI300X is 1017 mm²; H20 is 814 mm².
• Transistor density: MI300X is 150.4M per mm²; H20 is 98.3M per mm².
• TDP: MI300X is 750 W; H20 is 500 W.
• Suggested PSU: MI300X is 1150 W; H20 is 900 W.
• Slot width: MI300X is OAM Module; H20 is SXM Module.
• Power connectors: MI300X lists none; H20 lists none.
• Production status: MI300X has no recorded status; H20 is listed as Active.
• Release date: MI300X released on 2023-12-05; H20 released on 2024-01-31.
• Predecessor: MI300X succeeds Radeon Instinct; H20 succeeds Server Ada.
• Successor: MI300X lists none; H20 lists Server Blackwell.
• Percentile vs all GPUs: MI300X is 100th; H20 is 50th.
• Average benchmark score: MI300X is 317,994; H20 is 0.