AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI308X and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 serve two very different segments of the server accelerator market, and the recorded data makes that split clear. The MI308X is built around a massive 153,000 million transistor design on a 1017 mm² die, delivering 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 192 GB of HBM3 memory with 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth. The H20 NVL16 uses a smaller 80,000 million transistor chip on an 814 mm² die, with 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, 96 GB of HBM3, and 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The data shows a 2.07x advantage for the MI308X in raw FP32 compute, and a 2x advantage in memory capacity. The H20 NVL16 counters with a significantly lower 400 W TDP versus 750 W, a higher base clock of 1830 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and an active production status with a 2025 release date, while the MI308X was released in 2023. Buyers seeking maximum raw compute and memory per module should choose the MI308X. Buyers constrained by power envelopes or requiring a currently produced part with a newer generation classification should choose the H20 NVL16.

Where Each One Wins

The MI308X wins decisively in raw floating-point throughput. Its FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS is more than double the H20 NVL16's 39.54 TFLOPS. The MI308X also holds the memory capacity advantage with 192 GB versus 96 GB, and the bandwidth advantage with 5.32 TB/s against 4.03 TB/s. The texture rate tells a similar story: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, a 4.13x margin. The MI308X also uses a wider 8192-bit memory bus compared to 6144 bit, and it has more shading units at 19,456 versus 9,984.

The H20 NVL16 wins in power efficiency. Its 400 W TDP is nearly half the MI308X's 750 W, meaning the H20 delivers its 39.54 TFLOPS at a substantially lower power cost per module. The H20 also has a higher base clock at 1830 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and a boost clock of 1980 MHz versus 2100 MHz, so the NVIDIA part runs at a tighter clock range. The H20 has tensor cores (312 of them) while the MI308X lists none, and the H20 has pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s while the MI308X records 0 MPixel/s. The H20 is an active production part; the MI308X has no production status listed. The H20's generation is listed as Server Hopper (Hxx) with a release date of 2025, while the MI308X sits in the Instinct (MIx) generation from 2023.

Architecture Differences

The MI308X uses AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture on a chip called Aqua Vanjaram. The H20 NVL16 uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the transistor counts differ sharply: 153,000 million for the MI308X versus 80,000 million for the H20. Die size also differs at 1017 mm² versus 814 mm², giving the MI308X a transistor density of 150.4M per mm² compared to 98.3M per mm² for the H20.

Memory architecture diverges. The MI308X pairs 192 GB of HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The H20 pairs 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are similar: 1300 MHz at 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI308X, and 1313 MHz at 5.3 Gbps effective for the H20.

Compute capabilities differ in structure. The MI308X lists 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, no ROPs, and no tensor cores. The H20 lists 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. FP16 performance also differs in ratio: the MI308X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the H20 achieves 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The MI308X has no display outputs, no APIs listed, and uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W. The H20 uses an SXM Module slot width, also has no display outputs and no APIs, and carries a suggested PSU of 800 W. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces. The predecessor fields differ: the MI308X follows Radeon Instinct, while the H20 follows Server Ada and has a listed successor in Server Blackwell.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more FP32 compute power?

A: The MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.07x the H20 NVL16's 39.54 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3, exactly double the H20 NVL16's 96 GB. Bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 4.03 TB/s.

Q: Which part draws less power?

A: The H20 NVL16 has a 400 W TDP, well below the MI308X's 750 W. Its suggested PSU is 800 W versus 1150 W for the MI308X.

Q: Are these cards usable for graphics output?

A: No. Both list no display outputs and no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all N/A for both).

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The MI308X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die. The H20 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Both use TSMC 5 nm.

Q: Which part is currently in production?

A: The H20 NVL16 has an active production status and a 2025 release date. The MI308X has no production status listed and a 2023 release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either accelerator, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived throughput figures. The largest single margin belongs to texture rate. The MI308X records 2,553.6 GTexel/s while the H20 manages 617.8 GTexel/s, a 4.13x advantage. That gap follows from the MI308X's 1,216 TMUs and 2,100 MHz boost clock, versus 312 TMUs and 1,980 MHz boost for the H20.

FP32 compute shows a 2.07x lead for the MI308X at 81.72 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16 is closer. The MI308X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the H20 achieves 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, so the MI308X still leads by a small margin in raw FP16 throughput. The H20's tensor cores, 312 of them, provide a hardware path for tensor workloads that the MI308X does not list.

Memory bandwidth gives the MI308X a 1.32x edge: 5.32 TB/s versus 4.03 TB/s. Memory capacity doubles at 192 GB versus 96 GB. The bus width difference is 8192 bit versus 6144 bit, a 1.33x ratio that aligns with the bandwidth gap. The H20's memory clock is marginally higher at 1313 MHz versus 1300 MHz, but the narrower bus limits total bandwidth.

Pixel rate is the one metric where the H20 has a clear win: 47.52 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. This reflects the H20's 24 ROPs, while the MI308X lists zero ROPs. Neither part has display outputs, so this metric matters only for compute workloads that touch rasterization stages, not for graphics output.

Clock behavior differs meaningfully. The H20 has a higher base clock at 1830 MHz versus 1000 MHz, but the MI308X has a higher boost clock at 2100 MHz versus 1980 MHz. The MI308X therefore spans a wider clock range, while the H20 runs closer to its peak at all times. The H20's TDP of 400 W supports a sustained high base clock; the MI308X's 750 W TDP allows a much higher boost ceiling.

Shading resources favor the MI308X heavily. It carries 19,456 shading units versus 9,984, a 1.95x ratio. Combined with the higher boost clock, this produces the large FP32 gap. The H20 compensates partially with its tensor core array and its 2:1 FP16 ratio, which doubles FP16 throughput relative to FP32. The MI308X's 1:1 ratio means its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput, so the H20's FP16 figure nearly matches the MI308X despite having half the shading units.

Transistor density also favors the MI308X at 150.4M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². The MI308X packs more transistors into a larger die, which explains its higher compute and memory resources. The H20 uses fewer transistors on a smaller die, which explains its lower power draw and its status as an active production part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI308X | NVIDIA H20 NVL16 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | GH100 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | Hopper |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Server Hopper (Hxx) |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz 5.2 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB HBM3 | 96 GB HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 5.32 TB/s | 4.03 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 9,984 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 312 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 312 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 400 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2025-09-01 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Server Ada |

| Successor | Not listed | Server Blackwell |

The specification table shows two parts that share a process node, a foundry, a memory type, a bus interface, and a lack of display outputs. Everything else diverges. The MI308X is the larger, hotter, faster part with more memory and more compute. The H20 is the smaller, cooler, actively produced part with tensor cores and a newer release date. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival data, so the comparison rests on the specification fields above.