AMD Instinct MI350X vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the NVIDIA H20. Both accelerators return an average benchmark score of 0, and each sits at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. With no measured workloads comparing the two directly, the quantitative analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

What the data does show is a substantial divergence in raw compute capacity. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part roughly 82% ahead in single-precision floating-point work. In FP16, the relationship changes: the MI350X sustains 72.09 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS through a 2:1 rate. The NVIDIA accelerator holds a lead of approximately 10% in FP16 peak throughput, a margin that reflects its dedicated tensor-oriented execution path.

Memory bandwidth favors the MI350X by a wide margin. The AMD module records 8.19 TB/s against 4.03 TB/s for the H20, a difference of roughly 103%. Texture rate follows the same direction: 2,252.8 GTexel/s for the MI350X versus 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20, making the AMD part about 3.6 times faster in that metric. Pixel rate is the one area where the H20 posts a non-zero result, 47.52 GPixel/s, while the MI350X records 0 MPixel/s, indicating the AMD design has no conventional raster output stage.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different process nodes and foundry generations. The AMD Instinct MI350X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA H20 uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts reflect this gap: the MI350X integrates 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, for a density of 77.7M per mm². The H20 integrates 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 98.3M per mm² despite the older node, because of its smaller, more compact physical layout.

The MI350X is built on the CDNA 4.0 architecture and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture and belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. The AMD chip is designated MI350 256CU, while the NVIDIA chip is designated GH100. In terms of product lineage, the MI350X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor, while the H20 lists Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor.

Shading unit counts differ sharply. The MI350X carries 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and no ROPs. The H20 carries 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The H20 also records 312 tensor cores; the MI350X records no tensor core count in the database. Clock behavior also differs: the MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz, while the H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The higher boost on the AMD part contributes to its FP32 lead, but the H20's higher base clock and its FP16 2:1 ratio show a design tuned for dense tensor math rather than raw scalar throughput.

Memory architecture is another clear separator. The MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, whereas the H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus. Memory clock rates are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the AMD part and 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part. The combination of wider bus, faster memory clock, and newer HBM type gives the MI350X more than double the bandwidth.

Power and physical design also split the two. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The MI350X ships as an OAM Module, the H20 as an SXM Module. Neither part has display outputs, and both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The MI350X has recorded dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width; the H20 has no dimensions recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to distinct roles for each accelerator. The AMD Instinct MI350X wins on FP32 compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and transistor integration. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 figure is roughly 82% higher than the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS. Its 288 GB memory pool is three times the H20's 96 GB, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is more than double the H20's 4.03 TB/s. For workloads that stress large model residency, high-bandwidth data movement, and single-precision math, the MI350X has the stronger recorded profile.

The NVIDIA H20 wins on FP16 peak throughput, pixel rate, base clock, and energy envelope. Its 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 figure exceeds the MI350X's 72.09 TFLOPS by about 10%. Its 47.52 GPixel/s pixel rate is the only non-zero pixel throughput in the comparison. Its base clock of 1830 MHz is substantially higher than the MI350X's 1000 MHz, which can benefit latency-sensitive dispatch patterns. Its 500 W TDP is half the MI350X's 1000 W, and its suggested PSU of 900 W is lower than the 1400 W suggested for the AMD part. The H20 also records a production status of Active, while the MI350X has no production status field filled in.

The FP16 comparison deserves additional context. The MI350X achieves its FP16 number at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain a throughput multiplier by switching precision. The H20 achieves its FP16 number at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its architecture doubles the rate when moving from FP32 to FP16. That architectural choice explains why the H20 can outperform the MI350X in FP16 despite having fewer shading units and a lower boost clock.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts in the database:

• Chip: MI350 256CU (AMD) versus GH100 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 versus Hopper
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 5 nm, both TSMC
• Transistors: 185,000 million versus 80,000 million
• Die size: 2380 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor density: 77.7M / mm² versus 98.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus 1830 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 1980 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective versus 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 288 GB versus 96 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e versus HBM3
• Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 6144 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 4.03 TB/s
• Shading units: 16,384 versus 9,984
• TMUs: 1,024 versus 312
• ROPs: 0 versus 24
• Tensor cores: none recorded versus 312
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS
• FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 1000 W versus 500 W
• Slot width: OAM Module versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: None versus not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 900 W
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width versus not recorded
• Production status: not recorded versus Active
• Release date: 2025-06-11 versus 2024-01-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus Server Ada
• Successor: none recorded versus Server Blackwell

Fields that match include manufacturer foundry (TSMC for both), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16 for both), display outputs (none for both), and API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all recorded as N/A for both). Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X records 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 82% higher than the NVIDIA H20's 39.54 TFLOPS.

Q: Which accelerator has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350X records 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The H20 records 4.03 TB/s from 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 have any advantage in compute throughput?

A: Yes. The H20 records 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, which is about 10% higher than the MI350X's 72.09 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What is the difference in power requirements?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which part uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The MI350X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the H20 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The MI350X also integrates more transistors, 185,000 million versus 80,000 million.

Q: Do both accelerators support the same host interface?

A: Yes. Both record a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, and both have no display outputs.