AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

The Verdict

The database places these two processors at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The AMD Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for mobile Phoenix chips, built on a 4 nm process with a 15 W power envelope. The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator on the Hopper architecture, using a 5 nm process, consuming 500 W, and requiring a 900 W suggested power supply. The H20 has no benchmark entries in the database, while the Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019 and sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The H20 holds a 50th percentile ranking, but that figure is based on its classification, not measured results. The Radeon 760M is the only one of the two with any recorded performance data, so any comparison of measured output rests entirely on the AMD part. The H20, by contrast, is a compute accelerator with no display outputs and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, meaning it is not a graphics card in the conventional sense. The data indicates the 760M is for everyday graphics and light compute on a laptop, while the H20 is a datacenter-oriented processor with massive memory and bandwidth, designed for workloads that are not represented in the recorded benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The AMD Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Navi III IGP generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process, with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation. It is also fabricated by TSMC, but on a 5 nm process, with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, for a density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The H20 has more than three times the transistor count and a much larger die, but lower transistor density due to the older process node.

The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. The H20 has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed, while the 760M has no tensor cores listed. Clock speeds differ substantially: the 760M runs at a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2599 MHz, while the H20 runs at a base of 1830 MHz and a boost of 1980 MHz. The higher boost clock on the AMD part does not compensate for the massive difference in shading unit count.

Memory configurations are entirely different classes. The 760M uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, with 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The H20 connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The H20 is an SXM module with no display outputs, while the 760M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs. The API support diverges completely: the 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the H20 lists N/A for all three.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data only covers the Radeon 760M. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 400. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 20255, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 30336. Passmark results show 890 in G2D, 5310 in G3D, and 2840 in GPU compute. Legacy DirectX tests show 65 in DX9, 52 in DX11, 25 in DX12, and 19 in DX10. The Radeon 760M's average benchmark score is 6019, which places it close to several rivals: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.4% ahead). The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5% higher than the 760M. These deltas are all under a single percentage point, indicating that the 760M performs in a tight cluster with those products.

The H20 has no benchmark scores in the database, so there are no measured wins for it. However, its specifications indicate where it would dominate: 96 GB of HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 compute. The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 5.323 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The H20's FP16 is at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. The H20 also has 312 tensor cores, which the 760M lacks entirely. The H20's texture rate is 617.8 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s for the 760M, and its pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s versus 41.58 GPixel/s. The H20 has a 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth advantage that the system-dependent memory of the 760M cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019, while the NVIDIA H20 has an average benchmark score of 0 because no benchmark results are recorded in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each processor?

A: The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent. The NVIDIA H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A for the H20. The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32, a difference of roughly 7.4 times in favor of the H20.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested power supply of 900 W.

Q: Which processor has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 312 tensor cores. The Radeon 760M has no tensor cores listed, but it does have 8 ray tracing cores, which the H20 does not list.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for the Radeon 760M versus the NVIDIA H20. The only measurable results belong to the AMD part. The Radeon 760M's strongest recorded result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 30336, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 20255. In Passmark, the G3D score of 5310 is the highest among the Passmark graphics tests, with G2D at 890 and GPU compute at 2840. The legacy DirectX tests show a clear regression with newer API versions: DX9 scores 65, DX11 scores 52, DX12 scores 25, and DX10 scores 19. This pattern suggests the 760M's architecture handles older graphics workloads more efficiently than newer ones, at least in these specific tests.

The nearest rival data for the 760M provides context for its average score. The Radeon RX 6400 averages 6001, just 0.3% behind the 760M. The GeForce GTX 770M averages 6000, also 0.3% behind. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server averages 5996, 0.4% behind. Only the Quadro P2000, at 6049, edges out the 760M, and only by 0.5%. These margins are within measurement noise, so the database effectively groups the 760M with those four products in terms of overall performance.

The H20's absence from the benchmarks means no direct comparison is possible from measured data. Its specifications, however, put it in a different performance class entirely. The H20's FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS is approximately 7.4 times the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS. The H20's FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS is roughly 14.9 times the 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS. The H20's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s is about 7.4 times the 760M's 83.17 GTexel/s. The H20's pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s is 14% higher than the 760M's 41.58 GPixel/s. The H20 has 312 TMUs versus 32 on the 760M, and 9984 shading units versus 512.

The memory bandwidth difference is the most pronounced. The H20's 4.03 TB/s is not comparable to the 760M's system-dependent bandwidth, which has no fixed value in the database. The H20's 96 GB of HBM3 is a fixed, dedicated pool, while the 760M relies on shared system memory. The H20's 6144-bit memory bus is also a fixed specification, whereas the 760M's bus width is system dependent. These are not incremental differences; they represent different product categories, with the H20 built for memory-intensive server workloads and the 760M built for integrated graphics in a mobile or low-power context.

The clock behavior also differs. The 760M boosts to 2599 MHz from an 800 MHz base, a 3.25 times multiplier. The H20 boosts to 1980 MHz from an 1830 MHz base, a modest 8% increase. The 760M's high boost clock helps its relatively small number of shading units achieve competitive results in the recorded tests, but the raw throughput gap remains overwhelming. The H20's lower boost ratio suggests it runs closer to its sustained limit, consistent with a server part designed for continuous operation. The 760M's 15 W TDP allows it to fit into an IGP slot with no power connectors, while the H20's 500 W TDP requires an SXM module and a 900 W suggested power supply. The database records the 760M as having a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, giving it twice the lanes at a newer generation. The H20's release date is listed as one day after the 760M, with the 760M releasing on January 30, 2024, and the H20 on January 31, 2024. The H20's predecessor is listed as Server Ada and its successor as Server Blackwell, while the 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and it has no successor listed.