AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon 820M and the NVIDIA H100 CNX. Neither product has an average benchmark score above zero, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The database records both GPUs at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but this percentile is based on the current incomplete benchmark data, not on measured performance. Therefore, this comparison must rely on the architectural and specification records rather than on synthetic or real-world test results.

The absence of benchmark scores means the two products cannot be ranked by measured frame rates, compute throughput, or rendering performance. The Radeon 820M has a recorded FP32 throughput of 716.8 GFLOPS, while the H100 CNX records 53.84 TFLOPS, which is 75 times higher. The H100 CNX also records FP16 throughput of 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, whereas the Radeon 820M records FP16 at 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating the H100 CNX delivers roughly 300 times the FP16 throughput. These figures represent theoretical peak rates from the specification database, not measured benchmark outcomes.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The H100 CNX records 44.28 GPixel/s and 841.3 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 820M records 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. The H100 CNX has a 4x advantage in pixel throughput and a 37.6x advantage in texture throughput. Memory bandwidth similarly favors the H100 CNX, which records 2.04 TB/s over a 5120-bit bus, while the Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The Radeon 820M has no dedicated memory size, type, or bus width; all memory resources are shared with the host system.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 820M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, using the Krackan Point 2 chip, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, belongs to the Server Hopper generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The H100 CNX records 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². The Radeon 820M does not record a transistor density.

The Radeon 820M is an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width. The H100 CNX is a discrete dual-slot server accelerator with a 350 W TDP, an 8-pin EPS power connector, and a suggested power supply of 750 W. The Radeon 820M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the H100 CNX uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Radeon 820M has display outputs described as portable device dependent, while the H100 CNX has no display outputs at all.

The H100 CNX has 14,592 shading units, 456 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 456 tensor cores. The Radeon 820M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, with 2 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H100 CNX records no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database, indicating it is not intended for conventional graphics API workloads. Clock speeds also differ: the Radeon 820M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, while the H100 CNX has a base clock of 690 MHz and a boost clock of 1845 MHz. The H100 CNX memory runs at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Radeon 820M memory clock is listed as system shared.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency and portability. Its 15 W TDP is 335 W lower than the H100 CNX, and it requires no external power connectors. It is an IGP, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and has no physical dimensions recorded, whereas the H100 CNX measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon 820M also supports standard graphics APIs with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for conventional rendering workloads on portable devices. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, which means it can drive built-in displays on mobile systems.

The H100 CNX wins in raw compute capacity. It has 456 tensor cores, which the Radeon 820M lacks entirely. Its FP32 throughput of 53.84 TFLOPS is 75x the Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput of 215.4 TFLOPS is about 300x higher. The H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e memory with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon 820M relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The H100 CNX also has a larger memory bus at 5120 bit versus system shared. The H100 CNX's 80,000 million transistors and 814 mm² die size indicate a much larger and more complex chip, while the Radeon 820M's transistor count and die size are unknown.

The H100 CNX records a production status of Active and was released on 2023-03-20, while the Radeon 820M also records Active status with a release date of 2025-02-28. The H100 CNX lists its predecessor as Server Ada and its successor as Server Blackwell, while the Radeon 820M lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP and has no successor recorded. The H100 CNX has a suggested PSU of 750 W, while the Radeon 820M has no suggested PSU listed. The H100 CNX uses a dual-slot form factor with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the Radeon 820M uses none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX records 53.84 TFLOPS FP32, which is 75 times the AMD Radeon 820M's 716.8 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 820M support any graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H100 CNX records no graphics API support in the database.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width, and bandwidth is system dependent. The H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: How many tensor cores does each GPU have?

A: The H100 CNX has 456 tensor cores, while the Radeon 820M records no tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 820M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and has a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Q: Which GPU has a larger die?

A: The H100 CNX has an 814 mm² die with 80,000 million transistors. The Radeon 820M's die size and transistor count are listed as unknown.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Radeon 820M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm process, while the H100 CNX uses Hopper on a 5 nm process. The H100 CNX records 80,000 million transistors and an 814 mm² die, while the Radeon 820M records unknown values for both. Transistor density is 98.3 million per mm² for the H100 CNX and null for the Radeon 820M.

Clock speeds differ: the Radeon 820M has a 400 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, while the H100 CNX has a 690 MHz base and 1845 MHz boost. The H100 CNX memory clock is 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Radeon 820M memory clock is system shared. Memory size is 80 GB HBM2e for the H100 CNX versus system shared for the Radeon 820M. Bus width is 5120 bit versus system shared, and bandwidth is 2.04 TB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units number 128 for the Radeon 820M and 14,592 for the H100 CNX. TMUs are 8 versus 456, and ROPs are 4 versus 24. The Radeon 820M has 2 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the H100 CNX has no RT cores and 456 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 22.40 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 716.8 GFLOPS versus 53.84 TFLOPS. FP16 is 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio versus 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio.

TDP is 15 W versus 350 W. Slot width is IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU is null versus 750 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus no outputs. The H100 CNX records dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Radeon 820M has no dimensions. The H100 CNX supports no graphics APIs, while the Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2025-02-28 for the Radeon 820M and 2023-03-20 for the H100 CNX. The H100 CNX lists a successor, Server Blackwell, while the Radeon 820M has none.

The Verdict

The data records two devices with entirely different purposes. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated GPU for portable systems, using RDNA 3.5, a 4 nm process, and a 15 W TDP. It supports modern graphics APIs, has display outputs, and fits within an IGP slot. Its compute figures are modest: 716.8 GFLOPS FP32, 22.40 GTexel/s, and 11.20 GPixel/s, with 128 shading units and 4 ROPs. It is suited for systems where power draw and physical footprint are constrained, and where standard graphics API support is required.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a server accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API support. It records 53.84 TFLOPS FP32, 215.4 TFLOPS FP16, 456 tensor cores, 80 GB of HBM2e, and 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth. It requires 350 W, a dual-slot form factor, an 8-pin EPS connector, and a 750 W suggested PSU. Its dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm and its 814 mm² die with 80,000 million transistors indicate a large, high-power compute device.

The choice between the two depends strictly on workload requirements. For rendering, mobile deployment, or API-based graphics workloads, the Radeon 820M is the only option with recorded API support and display outputs. For tensor core compute, high FP16 throughput, or massive memory bandwidth, the H100 CNX is the only option with those capabilities. The Radeon 820M's 15 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power integrated systems. The H100 CNX's 350 W TDP and 750 W suggested PSU indicate a data center or workstation installation. Neither product can substitute for the other based on the recorded data: the Radeon 820M lacks tensor cores, dedicated memory, and high FP16 throughput, while the H100 CNX lacks graphics APIs, display outputs, and low power consumption. The data shows no overlap in their intended use cases.