AMD Radeon 780M vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is unusually sparse, with only one side having measurable performance results. The AMD Radeon 780M has three benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has none. This asymmetry defines the entire comparison: the 780M delivers concrete, quantifiable results, whereas the H20 NVL16 lacks any recorded benchmark scores, making a direct numerical head-to-head impossible.

The AMD Radeon 780M achieves an average benchmark score of 17,588 across its recorded tests. Its best individual result comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 33,683, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 18,602. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields a much lower score of 480, reflecting the heavy load of modern rasterization workloads on this integrated graphics processor.

The 780M's average score places it at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. This percentile ranking indicates that it outperforms the majority of recorded graphics hardware, despite being an integrated processor with a 15 W TDP. The nearest rivals in the database confirm this positioning: the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 17,551, which is 0.2% behind the 780M, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 17,509, 0.5% behind. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639, which is 0.3% ahead of the 780M, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 scores 17,666, 0.4% ahead.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has zero recorded benchmarks, an average score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile with no nearest rivals listed. It cannot be compared directly on any metric. The data shows a complete absence of performance measurements for this server accelerator, which means every conclusion about its performance must remain qualitative. The H20 NVL16's specifications suggest a different performance class entirely, but without recorded scores, no numerical comparison can be made.

The only meaningful score-based conclusion is that the 780M has verified results across three distinct test types, while the H20 NVL16 has none. This is not a comparison of winners; it is a documentation gap. The database records no head-to-head benchmarks between these two products, and the win counts for both are zero.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon 780M?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588 across its recorded tests, which places it at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database contains zero benchmark entries for the NVIDIA H20 NVL16, its average benchmark score is 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: How does the Radeon 780M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 780M is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 560 and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 460. It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7790.

Q: Which benchmark test produces the highest score for the Radeon 780M?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test produces the highest recorded score at 33,683, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 18,602 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 480.

Q: What is the performance percentile of the NVIDIA H20 NVL16?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What does the 780M's 61st percentile ranking indicate?

A: It indicates that the integrated GPU outperforms roughly 61% of all GPUs recorded in the database, despite its low 15 W TDP and integrated form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in every measurable category because it is the only product with recorded performance data. It delivers verified scores in three benchmark tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 480, Geekbench OpenCL at 18,602, and Geekbench Vulkan at 33,683. Its average score of 17,588 and 61st percentile ranking demonstrate that it can hold its own against discrete GPUs from previous generations, as shown by its position relative to the Radeon Pro 560, Radeon Pro 460, GeForce RTX 4060, and Radeon HD 7790.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins in no measured category because the database contains no benchmark results for it. This server accelerator has an average score of 0 and no nearest rivals. It cannot claim any performance advantage based on recorded data.

For specific workloads, the available data favors the 780M in API-based compute tests. The Vulkan score of 33,683 is nearly double the OpenCL score of 18,602, indicating that the RDNA 3.0 architecture responds particularly well to Vulkan workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480 is dramatically lower, suggesting that this integrated GPU struggles with the demanding DX12 rasterization workload in that test.

The H20 NVL16's absence from the benchmarks means its use case cannot be validated through recorded performance. Its specifications point toward high-throughput server workloads, but the database does not substantiate this with numbers.

Specification Differences

The two products differ fundamentally in nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Radeon 780M is an integrated graphics processor built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is a server accelerator built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture.

Transistor counts differ enormously: the 780M has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6 million transistors per mm². The H20 NVL16 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a lower density of 98.3 million per mm².

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz, while the H20 NVL16 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different: the 780M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the H20 NVL16 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).

Compute unit counts differ sharply. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The H20 NVL16 has 9,984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, and 312 tensor cores. The 780M has no tensor cores, while the H20 NVL16 has no ray tracing cores.

Rates and throughput follow the same pattern. The 780M achieves 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 at 8.909 TFLOPS and FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1). The H20 NVL16 achieves 47.52 GPixel/s pixel rate and 617.8 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 at 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 at 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and form factor differences are extreme. The 780M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The H20 NVL16 has a 400 W TDP, is an SXM module with a suggested PSU of 800 W, and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The 780M has motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the H20 NVL16 has no display outputs at all.

API support also differs. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 NVL16 has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, listed as N/A for all three.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two products is substantial. The AMD Radeon 780M belongs to the Navi III IGP generation under the Phoenix chip, using RDNA 3.0 architecture. It is built on a 4 nm TSMC process and integrates graphics directly into the processor package, which explains its 15 W TDP and IGP slot width. Its predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP and its successor as Navi III IGP, indicating a continuous line of integrated graphics development.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation under the GH100 chip, using Hopper architecture. It is built on a 5 nm TSMC process and is designed as a server accelerator module with an SXM form factor. Its predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell, placing it within NVIDIA's server product lineage.

The compute feature sets are oriented toward different workloads. The 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, reflecting its intended use in graphics rendering and gaming. The H20 NVL16 includes 312 tensor cores, reflecting its intended use in AI and compute acceleration. The 780M's FP16 performance matches its FP32 performance at 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1), while the H20 NVL16 doubles its FP16 throughput to 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1), a design choice that favors mixed-precision compute workloads.

Memory architecture reinforces the different roles. The 780M relies on system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making its performance dependent on the host system's memory configuration. The H20 NVL16 carries 96 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, a configuration built for large datasets and high-throughput server workloads. The transistor density difference, 142.6M per mm² for the 780M versus 98.3M per mm² for the H20 NVL16, reflects the different design priorities: the 780M maximizes logic density in a small integrated package, while the H20 NVL16 spreads a massive transistor count across a much larger die.

The release dates place these products in different market windows. The 780M launched on January 30, 2024, while the H20 NVL16 is dated September 1, 2025. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The data supports only one clear choice for users who need verified performance: the AMD Radeon 780M. It has a recorded average benchmark score of 17,588, a 61st percentile ranking, and concrete results across three different tests. Its nearest rivals in the database, including discrete GPUs like the Radeon Pro 560 and GeForce RTX 4060, sit within a narrow 0.5% band of its average score, showing that this integrated processor delivers competitive performance for its class.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 cannot be evaluated on performance grounds because the database contains no benchmark scores for it. Its 50th percentile ranking with an average score of 0 provides no evidence of capability. The specifications suggest a high-powered server accelerator with 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, 79.07 TFLOPS FP16, and 4.03 TB/s of memory bandwidth, but these are unverified figures in the context of recorded performance data.

For users seeking a product with documented results, the 780M is the only option that can be assessed. Its 61st percentile placement and modest power envelope make it a defensible choice for systems requiring integrated graphics with measurable performance. For users considering the H20 NVL16, the database provides no benchmark evidence to support a purchasing decision, only specifications. The verdict is therefore straightforward: the data verifies the 780M, while the H20 NVL16 remains unproven in recorded performance.