AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA H200 NVL and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. The result is decisive in one direction. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 78,467 points. This translates to a 326.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, meaning the H200 NVL delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

Context from the nearest rivals helps clarify the magnitude of this gap. The H200 NVL sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 334,891. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA B200, scores 345,482, which is 3.1% higher. The AMD Instinct MI300X trails by 5.3% with a score of 317,994, and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC leads by 9.4% at 369,831. The NVIDIA L40S comes in 13.2% lower at 295,763. For the AMD side, the Radeon Pro Vega 64X holds the 92nd percentile, with an average score of 80,959 across its OpenCL and Metal results. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600, is nearly identical at 81,995, only 1.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 scores 79,842, a 1.4% deficit, and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants sit 1.7% and 2.0% behind.

The head-to-head result shows a 326.8% delta, which dwarfs the differences seen among the H200 NVL's own peer group. That peer group shows a spread of roughly 13% between the lowest and highest scorers, whereas the Vega 64X is an order of magnitude slower in this specific test. The data does not record any benchmark where the AMD part wins, so the win count stands at 1 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip on a 5 nm process from TSMC, built on the Hopper architecture. It belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses the Vega 10 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, built on GCN 5.0. This places it in the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation, which is now end-of-life.

Transistor counts reflect the process gap. The H200 NVL packs 80,000 million transistors on a die size of 814 mm², giving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The Vega 64X contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of 25.3M per mm². The H200 NVL has roughly 6.4 times the transistor count and a density nearly four times higher, which is consistent with the 5 nm versus 14 nm node difference.

The memory subsystems are vastly different. The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64X has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part offers more than nine times the capacity and nearly ten times the bandwidth. Clock speeds show a smaller gap: the H200 NVL runs at a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz, while the Vega 64X runs at 1250 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ, with the H200 NVL at 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) and the Vega 64X at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Compute resources diverge sharply. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The Vega 64X has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no tensor cores. The H200 NVL reports 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 and 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the Vega 64X reports 12.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Pixel and texture rates also differ: the H200 NVL hits 42.84 GPixel/s and 942.5 GTexel/s, while the Vega 64X achieves 93.95 GPixel/s and 375.8 GTexel/s. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate due to its larger ROP count, but the NVIDIA part dominates texture throughput.

The H200 NVL uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Vega 64X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot card with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested PSU of 1000 W, consuming 600 W TDP. The Vega 64X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 250 W TDP. The H200 NVL has no display outputs, while the Vega 64X has portable-device-dependent outputs. API support also differs: the H200 NVL lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, whereas the Vega 64X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins decisively in every recorded compute metric. The OpenCL benchmark shows a 326.8% advantage, and the raw specifications support this across FP32, FP16, memory bandwidth, and texture rate. For data-center workloads such as large-scale inference, training, or HPC simulations, the H200 NVL is the clear choice based on the data. Its 141 GB of HBM3e memory and 4.89 TB/s bandwidth enable working with datasets that would not fit in the Vega 64X's 16 GB HBM2 allocation. The presence of tensor cores, absent on the Vega 64X, further cements its position for AI-accelerated tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X does have a few areas where it does not fall behind, based strictly on the recorded figures. Its pixel rate of 93.95 GPixel/s is more than double the H200 NVL's 42.84 GPixel/s, which could favor rasterization-heavy workloads if the rest of the system were comparable. It also has a higher ROP count (64 versus 24), and it supports modern graphics APIs that the H200 NVL lacks entirely. The Vega 64X is an IGP with no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems where physical space and power delivery are constrained. Its 250 W TDP is less than half of the H200 NVL's 600 W, though the database does not provide comparative power-efficiency scores.

However, the benchmark data only records a single OpenCL result, and the Vega 64X has no wins in that test. Its Metal score of 83,450 is not compared directly to the H200 NVL, since the NVIDIA part has no Metal benchmark in the database. The Vega 64X's 92nd percentile placement among all GPUs shows it was competitive in its era, but the H200 NVL sits at the 100th percentile, meaning no GPU in the database scores higher on average.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA H200 NVL is the superior choice for any workload measured by the OpenCL benchmark. It outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 326.8%, and it ranks in the 100th percentile among all GPUs, while the Vega 64X ranks in the 92nd. The H200 NVL also offers substantially more memory, bandwidth, and compute throughput, making it suitable for modern data-center tasks. The Vega 64X, being end-of-life, has no recorded benchmark win and falls behind in every direct comparison.

The AMD part may still be relevant for legacy systems that require an integrated GPU with display outputs and graphics API support. Its pixel rate advantage and lower TDP make it a plausible option for embedded or mobile applications where the H200 NVL's dual-slot, 600 W design is impractical. But the database shows no scenario where the Vega 64X wins a benchmark. For anyone choosing between these two, the data points firmly toward the NVIDIA H200 NVL, unless the workload specifically requires the Vega 64X's graphics API compatibility or its IGP form factor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA H200 NVL than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X in OpenCL?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891 versus 78,467, a 326.8% advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e, while the Vega 64X has 16 GB of HBM2.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X have any benchmark win over the H200 NVL?

A: No, the database records 0 wins for the AMD part and 1 win for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has a pixel rate of 93.95 GPixel/s, compared to 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The H200 NVL has 98.3M transistors per mm², and the Vega 64X has 25.3M per mm².

Q: Which GPU supports graphics APIs?

A: The Vega 64X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the H200 NVL lists no graphics API support.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA H200 NVL | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X |

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

| Chip | GH100 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | Hopper | GCN 5.0 |

| Generation | Server Hopper (Hxx) | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 80,000 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 814 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 98.3M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1365 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1593 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 141 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 6144 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.89 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16896 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 528 | 256 |

| ROPs | 24 | 64 |

| Tensor Cores | 528 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 42.84 GPixel/s | 93.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 942.5 GTexel/s | 375.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 60.32 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-11-17 | 2019-03-18 |