AMD Radeon 880M vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 880M and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 occupy completely different segments of the GPU market, and the recorded data reflects that split. The Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor within the Strix Point mobile chip, designed for portable devices. The H20 NVL16 is a server accelerator built on the Hopper architecture, packaged as an SXM Module with 96 GB of HBM3 memory. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the two, and the H20 NVL16 has an empty benchmark array. Consequently, direct performance comparison is impossible from measured scores alone.

The Radeon 880M carries all ten recorded benchmark entries, spanning 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, plus the Passmark suite covering DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. Its average benchmark score is 8436, placing it at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M at 8462 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8325 (1.3% behind). These deltas are all within 1.3 percentage points, indicating that the 880M sits in a tightly clustered performance band among older discrete mobile GPUs.

The H20 NVL16, by contrast, has no benchmark scores in the database. Its percentile ranking of 50 is a placeholder based on its classification, not on measured results. The data shows that the H20 NVL16 is a compute-oriented accelerator with tensor cores (312 of them) and substantial memory bandwidth, but without recorded benchmark outputs, its performance cannot be quantified relative to any rival. The wins are therefore asymmetrical: the 880M wins on having measurable results, while the H20 NVL16 wins on raw hardware specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply at every architectural level. The Radeon 880M uses the RDNA 3.5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die. The transistor density is 145.9 million per square millimeter. The H20 NVL16 uses the Hopper architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The H20 NVL16 packs more than twice the transistors into more than three times the die area.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Radeon 880M runs at a 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The H20 NVL16 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. Despite lower clock speeds, the H20 NVL16 delivers far higher throughput because of its massive parallel hardware. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 16 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The H20 NVL16 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. It has no ray tracing cores listed, while the 880M has no tensor cores listed.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 880M uses system-shared memory, with a system-dependent bandwidth and a system-shared bus width. Its memory clock is also system-shared. The H20 NVL16 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s. The pixel rate is close: 46.40 GPixel/s for the 880M versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20 NVL16. The texture rate diverges heavily: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput shows the largest gap. The 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.454 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The FP16 advantage on the H20 NVL16 is 17.75 times the 880M's FP16 figure. Power envelopes differ accordingly: the 880M is rated at 15 W with no power connectors, while the H20 NVL16 is rated at 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W.

Interface and output provisions also contrast. The 880M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has portable-device-dependent display outputs. The H20 NVL16 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has no display outputs. API support favors the 880M, which lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 NVL16 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server-oriented role without graphics API exposure.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins counters for both items are zero. No direct measured comparison exists in the database. The only quantitative basis for comparison is the specification sheet and the 880M's recorded benchmark scores.

Looking at the 880M's individual results, its strongest showing is in Geekbench Vulkan at 40006, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 31285. Its Passmark G3D score is 7615, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 3719. The Passmark DirectX scores are low: 97 for DirectX 9, 73 for DirectX 11, 32 for DirectX 12, and 31 for DirectX 10. The Passmark G2D score is 969. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 535. These numbers place the 880M in the 43rd percentile overall, with its nearest rivals all within a 1.3% band.

For the H20 NVL16, no benchmark scores exist. The database cannot show how it performs in any workload. What the data does show is its theoretical peak rates: 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, 79.07 TFLOPS FP16, 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 617.8 GTexel/s texture rate. These are hardware specifications, not measured outcomes. The 880M's FP32 is 4.454 TFLOPS, which is 8.88 times lower than the H20 NVL16's FP32 figure. The 880M's FP16 is 4.454 TFLOPS, which is 17.75 times lower than the H20 NVL16's FP16 figure.

The texture rate gap is also pronounced: the H20 NVL16's 617.8 GTexel/s is 4.44 times the 880M's 139.2 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are nearly identical, with the H20 NVL16 at 47.52 GPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s for the 880M, a difference of 2.4%. This near-parity in pixel throughput is notable given the massive differences elsewhere.

The ROP count is the only other close specification: 16 ROPs for the 880M versus 24 ROPs for the H20 NVL16. The H20 NVL16 has 50% more ROPs, yet its pixel rate is only 2.4% higher, likely because its clock is much lower (1980 MHz boost versus 2900 MHz boost). The 880M's higher boost clock compensates for its fewer ROPs in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

FAQ

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

A: No. The H20 NVL16's benchmark array is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. The Radeon 880M has ten recorded benchmark scores.

Q: How does the Radeon 880M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 880M's average score of 8436 is 0.1% above the GeForce GTX 675MX (8427), 0.3% below the GeForce MX330 (8458), 0.3% below the Radeon HD 8870M (8462), and 1.3% above the Radeon R9 M375X (8325).

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The H20 NVL16 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, which is 17.75 times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The H20 NVL16 has 4.03 TB/s from 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. The Radeon 880M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Radeon 880M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 NVL16 lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Radeon 880M has 34,000 million transistors on a 4 nm process. The H20 NVL16 has 80,000 million transistors on a 5 nm process.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Radeon 880M is a mobile integrated GPU with measurable graphics performance. Its ten benchmark scores, including a Geekbench Vulkan result of 40006 and a Passmark G3D score of 7615, confirm it operates in the same performance class as older discrete mobile GPUs like the GeForce GTX 675MX and Radeon R9 M375X, all within a 1.3% band. Its 15 W TDP, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and portable-device-dependent display outputs position it for thin-and-light systems where graphics capability is secondary to power efficiency.

The H20 NVL16 is a server accelerator with no recorded graphics benchmarks. Its 400 W TDP, SXM Module slot width, PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, and absence of display outputs indicate it is not intended for rendering to a screen. Its 312 tensor cores, 96 GB HBM3, and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth point toward compute workloads, though the database lacks measured scores to confirm actual performance. Its FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS are specification maxima, not validated results.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the database, the decision hinges on workload type. The 880M is the only one with recorded graphics results, and those results show a competent integrated solution for mobile devices. The H20 NVL16 offers vastly higher compute specifications, particularly in FP16 and memory bandwidth, but its lack of benchmark data means no empirical validation exists in the database. The 880M's nearest-rival deltas are all under 1.3%, so its positioning is well established. The H20 NVL16's positioning cannot be established from measurements, only from its hardware characteristics. The data confirms the 880M for graphics-oriented portable systems and the H20 NVL16 for server compute deployments, with the caveat that the latter's performance remains unquantified.