AMD Radeon 820M vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 820M and NVIDIA H20. Both products carry an identical percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The win count for each product stands at zero in direct comparisons. This absence of measured data means any comparative evaluation must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the database.

What the data does show is a stark contrast in raw compute capabilities. The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M reaches 716.8 GFLOPS. That places the H20 at approximately 55 times the FP32 throughput of the 820M, a gap that reflects their entirely different design targets. In FP16 compute, the H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, whereas the 820M sustains 716.8 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The H20's tensor core array of 312 units further separates the two, as the 820M has no tensor cores recorded in the database.

Pixel throughput tells a similar story. The H20 posts 47.52 GPixel/s against 11.20 GPixel/s for the 820M, a 4.2 times advantage. Texture rate shows an even larger gap: 617.8 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s, roughly 27.6 times higher on the H20. These figures indicate the H20 is built for sustained, high-throughput workloads, while the 820M targets lightweight graphics tasks within a constrained power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two products share a foundry, TSMC, but little else in their underlying designs. The AMD Radeon 820M uses a 4 nm process node and is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, specifically the Krackan Point 2 chip within the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile. The NVIDIA H20 uses a 5 nm process node and the Hopper architecture, built on the GH100 chip in the Server Hopper generation. The process node difference gives AMD a slight manufacturing advantage in density, though the database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for the 820M. For the H20, the database lists 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm².

The shading resources diverge substantially. The 820M carries 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The H20 fields 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware exists on the 820M with 2 RT cores, while the H20's RT core count is not recorded in the database; instead, the H20 lists 312 tensor cores, which the 820M lacks entirely. This reflects their divergent roles: the 820M is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices, while the H20 is a dedicated server accelerator.

Clock behavior also differs. The 820M runs a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz, a wide range that allows aggressive power management. The H20 runs a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz, a narrow range consistent with a high-power, continuously loaded server part. Memory configurations are fundamentally incompatible. The 820M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and bus width, meaning its performance scales with the host laptop's memory subsystem. The H20 carries 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth, with a memory clock of 1313 MHz and an effective data rate of 5.3 Gbps.

Power and physical specifications reinforce the divide. The 820M has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W, comes as an SXM module, and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The H20's suggested PSU rating is 900 W. Display outputs also differ: the 820M's outputs are portable device dependent, while the H20 has no outputs at all, confirming its headless server role. API support follows the same pattern. The 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics rendering APIs.

Release timing places the 820M in 2025-02-28 and the H20 in 2024-01-31. The H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, with no successor recorded. Both products are listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no overlapping purpose. The AMD Radeon 820M is an integrated GPU for portable devices, operating at 15 W with system shared memory and a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. The NVIDIA H20 is a 500 W server accelerator with 96 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory, a 6144-bit bus, and 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The H20's FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS place it in a compute class that the 820M cannot approach, given the latter's 716.8 GFLOPS in both precisions.

For graphics rendering, the 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for conventional display workloads. The H20 lacks all three APIs, so it cannot run standard graphics applications. The 820M also has display outputs, while the H20 has none. Any user requiring a display output or traditional graphics API support must choose the 820M. Any workload requiring high-throughput FP16, tensor operations, or massive memory bandwidth must choose the H20.

The power envelope is a decisive factor. The 820M's 15 W TDP fits into mobile platforms with no external power connectors. The H20's 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU demand a server infrastructure. The 820M's boost clock of 2800 MHz is higher than the H20's 1980 MHz, but this does not compensate for the H20's far larger resource pool. The data indicates that these products target mutually exclusive segments, and the choice is dictated by the workload environment rather than any performance overlap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon 820M delivers 716.8 GFLOPS. The H20 is approximately 55 times higher in this metric.

Q: Do both GPUs support standard graphics APIs?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 820M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width. The NVIDIA H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU rating of 900 W.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 312 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon 820M has no tensor cores recorded in the database.

Q: What are their respective release dates?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M was released on 2025-02-28. The NVIDIA H20 was released on 2024-01-31.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in scenarios that require low power consumption, display output, and standard graphics API support. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for portable devices, and its portable device dependent display outputs confirm this intent. The support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run conventional games and graphics applications. Its boost clock of 2800 MHz is notably higher than the H20's 1980 MHz, which helps compensate for its smaller shader count in lightly threaded workloads. The 820M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is appropriate for an integrated part, and it carries 2 RT cores for hardware ray tracing support. Its system shared memory design means it has no dedicated memory pool, but that also removes the need for a separate memory purchase.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in compute-heavy server workloads. Its 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 312 tensor cores, make it a data center accelerator rather than a graphics card. The 96 GB HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth is suited for large models and datasets that would never fit in the 820M's system shared memory. The 6144-bit bus width provides a memory interface that the 820M cannot match, as the latter's bus width is system dependent and not specified in the database. The H20's 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU indicate a chassis designed for sustained compute, not battery operation. Its SXM module form factor and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface align with server platforms. The H20's pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s and texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s are far beyond the 820M's 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s, though the H20 lacks display outputs and graphics APIs, so these rates are not used for conventional rendering.

The process node comparison slightly favors the 820M at 4 nm versus the H20's 5 nm, but the H20's transistor count of 80,000 million on an 814 mm² die demonstrates a vastly larger implementation. The 820M's transistor count and die size are not recorded, so a direct density comparison is impossible. The 820M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell, indicating the H20 sits in an active product line with a known roadmap. Both products are marked Active in production status. The database records no benchmark scores or direct head-to-head results, so all conclusions here derive from the architectural and specification data presented above.