AMD Radeon 860M vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 860M is an integrated graphics processor built for mobile devices, using the Krackan Point chip and RDNA 3.5 architecture. The NVIDIA H20 is a server-grade accelerator built on the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture. The database records show an average benchmark score of 26,401 for the 860M, placing it in the 72nd percentile across all GPUs. The H20 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, placing it in the 50th percentile with an average score of zero. This comparison therefore relies primarily on architectural specifications and the measured results for the integrated part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 860M wins in any scenario that requires a self-contained graphics solution within a portable device. Its measured Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,759 and its Vulkan score is 30,043, which gives it a functional presence in compute workloads that stress the GPU through standard APIs. The 860M also wins on power efficiency targets, as it carries a 15 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems where power delivery is limited. Its IGP slot width means it occupies no expansion slot, and its display outputs are portable device dependent, so it can drive built-in panels.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in scenarios that demand massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high-throughput tensor operations. It holds 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. Its shading unit count is 9,984, its tensor core count is 312, and its FP16 throughput is 79.07 TFLOPS. These figures position it for data center inference and training workloads where the 860M cannot compete. The H20 also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the 860M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The H20 has no display outputs, meaning it is not designed for rendering to a screen, while the 860M is explicitly tied to portable device displays.

In raw rasterization throughput, the two are close. The 860M achieves 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s, while the H20 achieves 47.52 GPixel/s and 617.8 GTexel/s. The pixel rate difference is less than 1%, but the texture rate difference is substantial, favoring the H20 by more than six times. The H20 leads decisively in FP32 compute at 39.54 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M, a gap of over 12 times. The H20 also leads in FP16 at 79.07 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the 860M, which performs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. None of these measurements appear in the head-to-head benchmark section, which records zero wins for either side, so the wins are derived from specification analysis.

Architecture Differences

The 860M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its generation is listed as Navi III IGP for Strix Point Mobile. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. The process node difference is small, but the chip scale is not. The H20's GH100 die measures 814 mm² and contains 80,000 million transistors, with a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². The 860M's transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown, so no direct density comparison can be made.

The 860M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. It has no listed ray tracing cores, but it includes 312 tensor cores. The shading unit advantage for the H20 is roughly 19.5 times, while the texture mapping unit advantage is roughly 9.75 times. The render output unit count is closer, with the H20 leading by 50%.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The integrated part relies on a wide boost range, while the server part runs at a higher floor and a narrower peak. Memory clocks also differ: the 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the H20 runs its HBM3 at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective speed.

The API support is a major architectural divergence. The 860M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no consumer graphics API support. The H20 is a compute-oriented accelerator, while the 860M is a full graphics IGP. The 860M also has a production status of Active with a release date in 2025, while the H20 has a production status of Active with a release date in 2024. The H20's predecessor is listed as Server Ada and its successor as Server Blackwell, while the 860M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is unknown.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon 860M is the appropriate choice for any system that needs standard graphics API support, integrated operation, and low power draw. Its 15 W TDP, lack of power connectors, IGP slot width, and portable device dependent display outputs align it with laptops and compact mobile devices. Its measured Vulkan score of 30,043 and OpenCL score of 22,759 confirm that it can execute real workloads, and its 72nd percentile ranking shows it outperforms a majority of GPUs in the database.

The NVIDIA H20 is the appropriate choice for server installations that require high memory capacity and bandwidth, large tensor core counts, and substantial FP32 and FP16 throughput. Its 96 GB HBM3 memory, 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, 312 tensor cores, and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 throughput are far beyond the 860M's capabilities. The H20 does not support any consumer graphics APIs, so it cannot be used for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan rendering. Its 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU also place it in a completely different power class. The H20 has no measured benchmarks in the database, so its real-world compute scores remain unverified.

For a portable device with display output needs, the 860M is the only viable option. For a compute server with no display requirements, the H20 is the only viable option. The two parts do not compete in any meaningful workload overlap. The database records zero head-to-head wins for either side, which reflects the absence of shared benchmark tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher measured benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M has measured scores of 22,759 in Geekbench OpenCL and 30,043 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving it an average benchmark score of 26,401. The NVIDIA H20 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The 860M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus width. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon 860M 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: How does power consumption compare?

A: The 860M has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 9,984 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 860M has 512 shading units. The H20 also has 312 tensor cores, while the 860M has none.

Q: What is the clock speed range for each?

A: The 860M has a base clock of 600 MHz and a boost clock of 3000 MHz. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not include any head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, so no direct side-by-side test scores are available. However, the specification data provides clear quantitative gaps in several areas.

The largest performance difference appears in FP32 throughput. The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS, while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. This is a 12.87 times advantage for the H20. In FP16, the H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS, while the 860M delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, a 25.74 times advantage. The 860M performs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the H20 performs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, which explains the larger FP16 gap.

Texture rate also shows a major split. The H20 achieves 617.8 GTexel/s, while the 860M achieves 96.00 GTexel/s. This is a 6.44 times advantage for the H20. Pixel rate is nearly identical: the 860M achieves 48.00 GPixel/s and the H20 achieves 47.52 GPixel/s, a difference of 1.0% in favor of the 860M. This near-parity in pixel rate is notable given the massive differences in shading units and texture units.

Memory bandwidth is another area of extreme divergence. The H20 provides 4.03 TB/s, while the 860M's bandwidth is system dependent and cannot be quantified from the database. The H20's 96 GB capacity versus system shared memory for the 860M also represents a fundamental difference in memory architecture.

The 860M's measured Vulkan score of 30,043 places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 with an average score of 26,421 and a delta of -0.1%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 with an average score of 26,331 and a delta of 0.3%, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary with an average score of 26,553 and a delta of -0.6%, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 with an average score of 26,683 and a delta of -1.1%. These deltas are all within 1.1 percentage points of the 860M's average score, indicating that the integrated part performs at the level of discrete mobile and desktop GPUs from previous generations.

The H20 has no nearest rivals listed and no benchmark scores, so its percentile of 50 is based on the absence of data rather than measured performance. The database treats unmeasured GPUs as falling at the median percentile. This means the 860M, with its 72nd percentile, is recorded as outperforming the H20 in percentile ranking, but this is a function of data availability, not actual compute capability. The specification data shows the H20 to be far superior in raw throughput metrics, but the database cannot confirm this with recorded test scores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The 860M is built on a 4 nm process, while the H20 uses a 5 nm process. The 860M has an unknown transistor count and die size, while the H20 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3 million per mm². The 860M's base clock is 600 MHz and its boost clock is 3000 MHz, while the H20's base clock is 1830 MHz and its boost clock is 1980 MHz. The 860M uses system shared memory, while the H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

The shading unit count is 512 for the 860M and 9,984 for the H20. TMUs are 32 versus 312. ROPs are 16 versus 24. The 860M has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the H20 has no ray tracing cores and 312 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s for the 860M and 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20. Texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.072 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16 is 3.072 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1).

The TDP is 15 W for the 860M and 500 W for the H20. The 860M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the H20 is an SXM module with a suggested PSU of 900 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 860M and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H20. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 860M and none for the H20. The API support list shows DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the 860M, while the H20 lists N/A for all three.

The release dates differ as well: the 860M was released in 2025, while the H20 was released in 2024. The 860M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and its successor is unknown. The H20's predecessor is Server Ada, and its successor is Server Blackwell. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.