AMD Instinct MI355X vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data positions these two accelerators for different deployment priorities. The AMD Instinct MI355X has no benchmark entries in the database, which means its performance profile must be assessed from its architectural specifications rather than measured results. The NVIDIA H200 NVL, by contrast, has a single recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891, placing it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs tracked by the database. This is a meaningful distinction: the H200 NVL is a verified performer, while the MI355X remains an unmeasured entry.

The MI355X wins on raw specification headroom. It delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 30.4% higher than the H200 NVL's 60.32 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 78.64 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio indicates symmetric compute across precisions, whereas the H200 NVL reaches 120.6 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes two FP16 operations per clock. The MI355X also carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory against 141 GB on the H200 NVL, and its 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth is 67.5% higher than the H200 NVL's 4.89 TB/s. These figures suggest the MI355X is built for capacity-bound workloads where memory size and bandwidth dominate.

The H200 NVL wins on verified compute efficiency and established ecosystem position. Its boost clock of 1785 MHz is higher than the MI355X's 2400 MHz boost, though that clock advantage does not translate into higher raw throughput. The H200 NVL's 16896 shading units exceed the MI355X's 16384, and its 528 tensor cores provide dedicated matrix math acceleration. The H200 NVL also has a production status of "Active," while the MI355X's production status is unlisted, indicating the NVIDIA part is already shipping in volume.

The power envelope is another decisive split. The H200 NVL draws 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W power supply, while the MI355X consumes 1400 W TDP with a suggested 1800 W power supply. The NVIDIA part delivers its verified performance at less than half the thermal budget. For dense server deployments where power density matters, the H200 NVL is the practical choice. The MI355X, with its OAM module form factor and lack of display outputs, targets scale-up nodes where power constraints are secondary to memory capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X records 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 30.4% above the NVIDIA H200 NVL's 60.32 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e across a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s.

Q: What is the measured benchmark performance of the H200 NVL?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. It sits 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200, 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, and 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

Q: Does the MI355X have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The MI355X has no entries in the benchmark database, so its percentile rank and average score are unset. Performance conclusions for this part derive from specifications only.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The MI355X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding 77.7M transistors per mm². The H200 NVL packs 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding 98.3M transistors per mm².

Q: What form factors and power requirements do the two use?

A: The MI355X is an OAM module with no power connectors listed and a 1400 W TDP, requiring a suggested 1800 W power supply. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot card using an 8-pin EPS connector, rated at 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable because the MI355X has no recorded scores, but the H200 NVL's nearest rival data provides a reference frame. The H200 NVL's Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891 places it 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200's 345,482 and 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's 369,831. It leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3% (317,994) and the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2% (295,763). This indicates the H200 NVL sits in the upper tier of the database's tracked accelerators, competitive with next-generation parts but not at the absolute top.

The MI355X's specification sheet suggests it could challenge the H200 NVL in compute-bound workloads. Its FP32 figure of 78.64 TFLOPS exceeds the H200 NVL's 60.32 TFLOPS by 18.32 TFLOPS, a 30.4% margin. In FP16, the comparison is more nuanced: the H200 NVL's 120.6 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio exceeds the MI355X's 78.64 TFLOPS at 1:1 by 41.96 TFLOPS. This means the NVIDIA part processes FP16 data at roughly 53% higher throughput, assuming both achieve their rated peak rates. The MI355X's symmetric FP16/FP32 ratio could indicate a design where reduced-precision acceleration is not a priority, while the H200 NVL's doubling of FP16 throughput over FP32 reflects a dedicated tensor-core pipeline.

Memory bandwidth is where the MI355X asserts clear dominance. The 8.19 TB/s figure is 3.30 TB/s higher than the H200 NVL's 4.89 TB/s, a 67.5% advantage. For large language model inference or training where weight matrices must stream from HBM to compute units, this bandwidth gap could translate into faster data movement per unit time. The MI355X also carries 147 GB more memory, allowing larger model residency without host-side offloading.

The H200 NVL counters with higher clock rates and more shading units. Its base clock of 1365 MHz and boost clock of 1785 MHz are both above the MI355X's 1000 MHz base and below its 2400 MHz boost. The H200 NVL's 16896 shading units outnumber the MI355X's 16384 by 512, a 3.1% margin. The H200 NVL also has 528 tensor cores, a feature the MI355X's specification list does not include. Its pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s and texture rate of 942.5 GTexel/s are both nonzero, whereas the MI355X lists 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and 2,457.6 GTexel/s texture rate. The MI355X's texture throughput is 2.6 times higher, but its zero pixel rate suggests the part is not designed for rasterization output.

The absence of head-to-head benchmark data means the only quantitative comparison available is the H200 NVL's performance relative to other NVIDIA and AMD parts. The MI355X's 50th percentile rank among all GPUs is provisional, based on no measured scores, and should not be interpreted as a performance verdict. The H200 NVL's 100th percentile rank reflects its verified OpenCL score and places it above the MI300X, a direct AMD predecessor, by 5.3%.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators diverge significantly in physical and electrical specifications. The MI355X uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the H200 NVL uses a 5 nm node from the same foundry. The MI355X integrates 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, compared to 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die for the H200 NVL. This yields transistor densities of 77.7M per mm² for the MI355X and 98.3M per mm² for the H200 NVL, meaning the NVIDIA chip packs transistors more densely despite the older process node.

Memory specifications differ across every dimension. The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The MI355X's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the H200 NVL runs at 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

The compute units differ in count and type. The MI355X has 16384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and no listed ROPs, tensor cores, or ray tracing cores. The H200 NVL has 16896 shading units, 528 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The MI355X's texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s is 2.6 times the H200 NVL's 942.5 GTexel/s, but the H200 NVL's pixel rate of 42.84 GPixel/s stands against the MI355X's 0 MPixel/s.

Power and cooling requirements are starkly different. The MI355X draws 1400 W TDP and requires a suggested 1800 W power supply, with no power connectors listed, consistent with its OAM module form factor. The H200 NVL draws 600 W TDP, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, requires a suggested 1000 W power supply, and occupies a dual-slot form factor. Physical dimensions also differ: the MI355X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the H200 NVL measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Release timing separates the two as well. The MI355X lists a release date of 2025-06-11, while the H200 NVL lists 2024-11-17, making the AMD part roughly seven months newer. The H200 NVL's production status is "Active," whereas the MI355X has no production status recorded. The H200 NVL's predecessor is listed as "Server Ada" and its successor as "Server Blackwell," while the MI355X's predecessor is "Radeon Instinct" with no successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The MI355X uses AMD's CDNA 4.0 architecture on the MI350 256CU chip. The H200 NVL uses NVIDIA's Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA 4.0 is AMD's dedicated compute architecture, stripped of graphics-focused features, while Hopper is NVIDIA's server-oriented architecture that retains some graphics capabilities, evidenced by its 24 ROPs and nonzero pixel rate.

The MI355X's process advantage is clear: a 3 nm node versus 5 nm, both from TSMC. The newer node allows AMD to integrate 105,000 million more transistors than NVIDIA's chip, a 131.3% increase. However, the MI355X's die is 1566 mm² larger, which explains its lower transistor density of 77.7M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². The larger die and higher transistor count come with a 800 W TDP penalty.

Memory architecture differs in bus width and capacity strategy. The MI355X uses an 8192-bit bus to drive 288 GB of HBM3e, while the H200 NVL uses a 6144-bit bus for 141 GB. The MI355X's effective memory clock of 8 Gbps is 25% higher than the H200 NVL's 6.4 Gbps. Together, the wider bus and faster clock produce the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth figure, which is 67.5% above the H200 NVL's 4.89 TB/s.

Compute architecture shows divergent priorities. The MI355X lists FP16 at 78.64 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, indicating no special reduced-precision path. The H200 NVL lists FP16 at 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its tensor cores double throughput when precision halves. The MI355X's lack of tensor core listings suggests its compute strategy relies on general-purpose shader units, while the H200 NVL's 528 tensor cores provide dedicated matrix operations. The MI355X's texture unit count of 1024 is nearly double the H200 NVL's 528, but the H200 NVL's 24 ROPs and 42.84 GPixel/s pixel rate show it retains some graphics output capability that the MI355X entirely omits.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI355X has a 1000 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost, a 1400 MHz range. The H200 NVL has a 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, a 420 MHz range. The MI355X's boost clock is 34.5% higher than the H200 NVL's, but its base clock is 26.7% lower. This suggests the MI355X relies on aggressive boosting to reach its peak throughput, while the H200 NVL operates closer to its sustained clock.

Both parts use PCIe 5.0 x16 as their bus interface and have no display outputs. Both list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A, confirming their compute-only roles. The H200 NVL's predecessor and successor designations indicate it sits within a planned server product cycle, while the MI355X's predecessor is the Radeon Instinct line, with no successor yet recorded.