AMD Instinct MI308X vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

AMD Instinct MI308X and NVIDIA H200 NVL are both high-end server accelerators aimed at dense compute workloads, but the data shows they are engineered with fundamentally different priorities. The MI308X is built around raw FP32 throughput and an enormous memory bus, while the H200 NVL leverages its Hopper architecture’s Tensor Core design and faster memory signaling. The recorded benchmark data currently includes only one score for the H200 NVL, which places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the MI308X has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile. This asymmetry means direct performance comparisons rest on architectural specifications and the H200 NVL’s single OpenCL result, rather than a full head-to-head suite.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI308X wins in scenarios that demand raw FP32 compute and maximum memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is rated at 81.72 TFLOPS, which is more than one-third higher than the H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS. For workloads that rely on standard-precision matrix operations or general compute without specialized tensor acceleration, the MI308X has a clear arithmetic advantage. Its memory subsystem is also larger and wider: 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus yields 5.32 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to the H200 NVL’s 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus at 4.89 TB/s. Applications that are bandwidth-saturated, such as large sparse matrix operations or data movement-heavy inference passes, would favor the MI308X’s 8.8% bandwidth lead and 36% larger capacity.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins in tensor-heavy and mixed-precision workloads. Its FP16 throughput is 120.6 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, which is substantially higher than the MI308X’s 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 rate. The H200 NVL also carries 528 Tensor Cores, while the MI308X lists no tensor core count at all. This suggests the H200 NVL is better suited for transformer-style AI training and inference where FP16 or lower-precision math dominates. The H200 NVL also has a higher base clock at 1365 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and its memory runs at 6.4 Gbps effective versus 5.2 Gbps, which helps latency-sensitive operations despite the narrower bus.

The H200 NVL also wins on the only direct benchmark score in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL result is 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. Relative to its nearest rivals, it trails the NVIDIA B200 by 3.1%, leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3%, trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, and leads the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2%. The MI308X has no comparable score, so the database currently shows no evidence of it outperforming the H200 NVL in any recorded benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The MI308X uses AMD’s CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the H200 NVL uses NVIDIA’s Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there. The MI308X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 150.4 million per square millimeter. The H200 NVL uses 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD part uses nearly twice the transistor count and a larger die, which aligns with its wider memory bus and higher shading unit count.

Memory technology differs as well. The MI308X uses HBM3 with an 8192-bit bus and 5.32 TB/s bandwidth, while the H200 NVL uses HBM3e with a 6144-bit bus and 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL’s memory clock is higher at 1593 MHz versus 1300 MHz, which partially compensates for its narrower bus. Capacity also diverges: 192 GB for the MI308X versus 141 GB for the H200 NVL. For models that exceed 141 GB, the MI308X’s extra 51 GB is a meaningful capacity advantage.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The MI308X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, producing a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a texture rate of 942.5 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s. The MI308X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it is not designed for rasterization. The H200 NVL’s 528 Tensor Cores are its primary compute engine for AI workloads, and its FP16 rate of 120.6 TFLOPS is 47.6% higher than its FP32 rate, indicating a dedicated mixed-precision path. The MI308X’s FP16 and FP32 rates are identical at 81.72 TFLOPS, showing no separate tensor throughput advantage.

Physical and power profiles also differ. The MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a 750 W TDP, requiring a suggested 1150 W power supply. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot card using an 8-pin EPS connector, with a 600 W TDP and a suggested 1000 W power supply. The H200 NVL has physical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the MI308X has no recorded dimensions. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces and have no display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI308X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to the NVIDIA H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS. That is a 35.5% advantage for the MI308X in standard-precision arithmetic.

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP16 compute?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL reaches 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 rate, while the MI308X achieves 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 rate. The H200 NVL leads by 47.6% in this mixed-precision metric.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The MI308X has 192 GB of HBM3, while the H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e. The MI308X provides 51 GB more capacity, which can matter for workloads that need to hold very large models or datasets on a single accelerator.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI308X reaches 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus, while the H200 NVL reaches 4.89 TB/s over a 6144-bit bus. The MI308X leads by approximately 8.8% in raw bandwidth.

Q: What does the H200 NVL’s benchmark score indicate?

A: Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. It trails the NVIDIA B200 by 3.1%, leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3%, trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, and leads the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2%.

Q: Which accelerator has more shading units?

A: The MI308X has 19,456 shading units, while the H200 NVL has 16,896. The MI308X also has 1,216 TMUs versus 528 for the H200 NVL, leading to a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every major specification category. The MI308X uses 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, while the H200 NVL uses 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density is 150.4M per square millimeter for the MI308X and 98.3M for the H200 NVL. The MI308X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the H200 NVL runs at 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1300 MHz with 5.2 Gbps effective for the MI308X versus 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the H200 NVL.

In terms of memory capacity, the MI308X offers 192 GB of HBM3, while the H200 NVL offers 141 GB of HBM3e. Bus widths are 8192 bit versus 6144 bit, and bandwidth is 5.32 TB/s versus 4.89 TB/s. Shading units are 19,456 versus 16,896, TMUs are 1,216 versus 528, and ROPs are 0 versus 24. The H200 NVL has 528 Tensor Cores, while the MI308X has none recorded. FP32 performance is 81.72 TFLOPS versus 60.32 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for the MI308X and 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL. Texture rate is 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s.

Power requirements also separate the two. The MI308X has a 750 W TDP and a suggested 1150 W power supply, while the H200 NVL has a 600 W TDP and a suggested 1000 W power supply. The MI308X is an OAM module with no power connectors, while the H200 NVL is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS connector. The H200 NVL measures 267 mm by 111 mm; the MI308X has no recorded dimensions. The H200 NVL is listed as Active in production status and has a release date of November 17, 2024, while the MI308X has no production status and was released on December 5, 2023. The H200 NVL’s predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell, while the MI308X’s predecessor is Radeon Instinct with no successor recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no paired benchmark results for these two accelerators, so the head-to-head comparison relies on the H200 NVL’s Geekbench OpenCL score and the architectural specifications of both parts. The H200 NVL’s score of 334,891 is its only recorded benchmark, and it places the card at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival comparison shows a 5.3% lead over the AMD Instinct MI300X, which is the closest analog to the MI308X in the same product family. That result suggests the MI308X, if measured, would face a significant deficit against the H200 NVL in OpenCL-style workloads, though no direct data exists to confirm it.

On the compute side, the MI308X’s FP32 rate of 81.72 TFLOPS is 35.5% higher than the H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS. This is the largest arithmetic win for the MI308X in the recorded data. The H200 NVL counters in FP16, where its 120.6 TFLOPS exceeds the MI308X’s 81.72 TFLOPS by 47.6%. That FP16 advantage is the H200 NVL’s biggest single metric lead and reflects its Tensor Core design. The MI308X’s memory bandwidth of 5.32 TB/s is 8.8% higher than the H200 NVL’s 4.89 TB/s, and its capacity of 192 GB is 36.2% higher than 141 GB. The H200 NVL’s higher memory clock of 1593 MHz versus 1300 MHz does not overcome the MI308X’s wider bus.

The H200 NVL’s 528 Tensor Cores give it a structural advantage in tensor math, while the MI308X lists no tensor core count. The MI308X’s 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs produce a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, which is 170.9% higher than the H200 NVL’s 942.5 GTexel/s. The H200 NVL has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s, while the MI308X has none. Power consumption favors the H200 NVL at 600 W versus 750 W, a 25% difference in TDP. The H200 NVL is also the only one of the two with a recorded benchmark score, and that score places it ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3%, behind the NVIDIA B200 by 3.1%, behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, and ahead of the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2%.