AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 against the NVIDIA H20. The AMD card has a complete benchmark suite recorded, while the NVIDIA H20 has no benchmark scores in the recorded data. This absence of comparable measurements means a direct numerical performance comparison cannot be derived from the database.

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700's recorded benchmark results show a broad range across different test suites. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 7006. Geekbench OpenCL returns 118202, while Geekbench Vulkan shows 63550. Passmark entries include DirectX 10 at 155, DirectX 11 at 272, DirectX 12 at 83, DirectX 9 at 363, G2D at 1236, G3D at 26979, and GPU Compute at 15300. The average benchmark score for the AMD card is 23315.

The AMD card sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, are the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276 (0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (0.3% difference), and the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23249 (0.3% difference). These four rivals are all within 0.3% of the AMD card's average score, indicating that the 23315 average places it in a tightly packed performance cluster. The data shows the AMD card is marginally ahead of all four rivals, but the margins are negligible, all under one percent.

The NVIDIA H20 has no recorded benchmark scores, no average benchmark score, and no nearest rivals in the database. Its percentile ranking is 50, but with zero benchmark entries, this percentile does not reflect measured performance. The database shows the NVIDIA H20 as a compute-oriented server product without any gaming or general graphics benchmark data captured.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge fundamentally in architecture, process technology, and design intent. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. AMD's chip contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0M per mm². NVIDIA's chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The NVIDIA die is significantly larger and packs more transistors, while the AMD design achieves higher density per square millimeter.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The AMD card runs at a 1660 MHz base clock and boosts to 2920 MHz, with a game clock of 2350 MHz. Memory clock is 2518 MHz, translating to 20.1 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA H20 operates at a 1830 MHz base clock and 1980 MHz boost, with no game clock listed. Its memory clock is 1313 MHz, or 5.3 Gbps effective. The AMD card's boost clock is substantially higher, while the NVIDIA part's base clock is higher.

Memory subsystems take entirely different approaches. AMD uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory bandwidth is over six times higher, and capacity is three times larger. The bus width difference is also pronounced, with NVIDIA's 6144-bit interface versus AMD's 256-bit interface.

Compute resources diverge significantly. The AMD card has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, and 64 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, no ray tracing cores listed, and 312 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has more than double the shading units and more texture units, but AMD has more than five times the render output units.

Raw throughput figures reflect these architectural choices. AMD achieves 373.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 747.5 GTexel/s texture rate. NVIDIA achieves 47.52 GPixel/s and 617.8 GTexel/s. AMD's pixel rate is nearly eight times higher, while its texture rate is about 21% higher. In compute, AMD delivers 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 and 47.84 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. NVIDIA delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. AMD leads in FP32, while NVIDIA leads in FP16 by a wide margin.

Power and physical specifications also contrast. AMD's TDP is 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W, a dual-slot design, and a single 16-pin power connector. NVIDIA's TDP is 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W, an SXM module form factor, and no power connector listed. The NVIDIA module is designed for server chassis integration rather than standard PCIe slot mounting. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces. AMD provides display outputs with 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while NVIDIA has no display outputs. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 delivers 47.84 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32. AMD leads by roughly 21% in this metric.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA offers three times the capacity and over six times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 support display output?

A: No. The NVIDIA H20 has no display outputs listed. The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 boosts to 2920 MHz, while the NVIDIA H20 boosts to 1980 MHz. AMD's boost clock is 940 MHz higher.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The AMD Navi 48 chip contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die. The NVIDIA GH100 chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

Q: Does the database contain any direct benchmark comparisons between these two GPUs?

A: No. The database lists no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products. The NVIDIA H20 has no benchmark scores recorded at all.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 | NVIDIA H20 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Navi 48 | GH100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Hopper |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi IV Series) | Server Hopper (Hxx) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1660 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2920 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2350 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 2518 MHz 20.1 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 644.6 GB/s | 4.03 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 9984 |

| TMUs | 256 | 312 |

| ROPs | 128 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 64 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 312 |

| Pixel Rate | 373.8 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 747.5 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 47.84 TFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 500 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 900 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Dimensions | 267 mm 10.5 inches, 111 mm 4.4 inches, 40 mm 1.6 inches | null |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2024-01-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Server Ada |

| Successor | null | Server Blackwell |

| Launch MSRP | 1,299 USD | null |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 wins in rasterization-oriented workloads. Its pixel rate of 373.8 GPixel/s dwarfs the NVIDIA H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, a roughly 8x advantage. Its texture rate of 747.5 GTexel/s also leads the NVIDIA part's 617.8 GTexel/s. The 128 ROPs on the AMD card versus 24 on the NVIDIA part explain the pixel throughput gap. The AMD card also has 64 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA H20 lists none. FP32 compute favors AMD at 47.84 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. The AMD card supports full graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and provides display outputs for direct video connection. Its boost clock of 2920 MHz is substantially higher than the NVIDIA part's 1980 MHz. The AMD card's dual-slot form factor and single 16-pin power connector suit standard workstation installations. Its 300 W TDP is lower than the NVIDIA H20's 500 W, and the suggested PSU of 700 W versus 900 W reflects the lower power envelope.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in memory-intensive and compute-heavy server workloads. Its 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth is more than six times the AMD card's 644.6 GB/s. The 96 GB HBM3 capacity is three times larger than AMD's 32 GB. The 6144-bit memory bus provides enormous parallel access. FP16 compute reaches 79.07 TFLOPS, well above the AMD card's 47.84 TFLOPS, and the 312 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part dedicated acceleration for tensor operations. The 9984 shading units offer more than double the AMD card's 4096. The SXM module form factor indicates integration into dense server platforms rather than standalone workstation builds. The NVIDIA H20's 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die provides a larger compute substrate. Its base clock of 1830 MHz exceeds the AMD card's 1660 MHz base. The NVIDIA part has no display outputs, which confirms its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card.

The recorded benchmark data only covers the AMD card. That card's 69th percentile ranking and average score of 23315, with nearest rivals clustered within 0.3%, place it in a competitive mid-range position. The NVIDIA H20 has no benchmark entries, so its actual performance relative to the AMD card cannot be quantified from the database. The architecture comparison shows two products designed for different purposes, with AMD focusing on graphics throughput and NVIDIA focusing on memory bandwidth and tensor compute.