AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs into completely different performance strata. The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins the only shared benchmark decisively, but the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 holds its own in API-specific tests that the H200 cannot even run.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the H200 NVL delivers a score of 334,891 against the W6800’s 121,808 — a 174.9% delta. This is not a close contest; the H200 NVL is in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6800 sits at the 96th percentile. The H200 NVL’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (-3.1%), the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 (+5.3%), the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC at 369,831 (-9.4%), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (+13.2%). The W6800’s nearest rivals are all within a 1% band: NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (+0.1%), NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (+0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (-0.3%), and AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (-0.8%).

The W6800’s wins come in API coverage, not raw score. It posts a Geekbench Metal score of 174,420 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,961 — tests the H200 NVL cannot run because it has no display outputs and its API support is marked N/A across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The W6800, by contrast, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For any workload that requires a display output or a graphics API, the H200 NVL is simply not an option.

The data indicates a clear split: the H200 NVL is a compute accelerator with no graphics capability, while the W6800 is a professional workstation GPU with full graphics and API support. The H200 NVL wins the only comparative compute test by a massive margin; the W6800 wins by being the only one that can render to a screen.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process. The H200 NVL packs 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The W6800 has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, with a density of 51.5M per mm². The H200 NVL has nearly triple the transistor count at roughly 1.6x the die size.

Memory configurations differ drastically. The H200 NVL features 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 9.5x bandwidth advantage for the H200 NVL, driven by both memory type and bus width.

Compute resources show the H200 NVL’s scale advantage. It has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 528 tensor cores. The W6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 60 ray tracing cores — but no tensor cores. The H200 NVL has no listed RT cores. The H200 NVL’s FP32 throughput is 60.32 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS for the W6800; FP16 is 120.6 TFLOPS versus 35.67 TFLOPS. Clock speeds tell a different story: the W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz, well above the H200 NVL’s 1785 MHz boost. The W6800 also has a higher pixel rate at 222.9 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s, reflecting its graphics-focused ROP count.

Power and interface specs differ as well. The H200 NVL draws 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W PSU, using an 8-pin EPS connector. The W6800 draws 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU, using 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The H200 NVL uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The H200 NVL has no display outputs; the W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions are similar in length (both 267 mm / 10.5 inches), but the W6800 is taller at 120 mm versus 111 mm and has a listed width of 50 mm where the H200 NVL has none.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: these are different tools for different jobs, and the choice depends entirely on workload requirements.

Pick the NVIDIA H200 NVL if your work is compute-bound and does not require any display output. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891 is 174.9% higher than the W6800’s 121,808. It sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all data-center accelerators. The 141 GB HBM3e memory with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth, 528 tensor cores, and 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it a clear choice for large-scale compute. Its 5 nm process and 80,000 million transistors indicate a design optimized for raw throughput. The H200 NVL is active in production and released in November 2024, with a successor in Server Blackwell.

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 if you need a graphics-capable workstation card. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it usable for rendering and display workloads. It has 60 ray tracing cores and a higher pixel rate of 222.9 GPixel/s. Its Geekbench Metal score of 174,420 and Vulkan score of 109,961 show it can handle graphics APIs. The W6800’s nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, indicating it is a solid mid-pack performer in its class. It is end-of-life, released in June 2021, with a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD.

The H200 NVL wins every compute benchmark it can run. The W6800 wins every graphics and display scenario by virtue of being the only one that supports them. If you cannot use a headless compute card, the H200 NVL is not an option regardless of its performance. If you need maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, the W6800’s 17.83 TFLOPS and 35.67 TFLOPS will not suffice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 174.9% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800’s 121,808.

Q: Can the NVIDIA H200 NVL drive displays?

A: No. The H200 NVL has no display outputs and lists its DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A. The W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The H200 NVL has a 600 W TDP and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The W6800 has a 250 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The W6800 has 60 ray tracing cores. The H200 NVL lists no RT cores in its specifications.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The H200 NVL is in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The W6800 is in the 96th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808. The delta is 174.9% in favor of the H200 NVL. This means the H200 NVL delivers more than 2.7x the OpenCL performance of the W6800.

Context matters here. The H200 NVL’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482, which is 3.1% higher. The AMD Instinct MI300X trails the H200 NVL by 5.3% at 317,994. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC leads by 9.4% at 369,831, and the NVIDIA L40S trails by 13.2% at 295,763. The H200 NVL is in the middle of a pack of data-center accelerators, all within roughly 10% of each other.

The W6800’s nearest rivals sit in a much tighter cluster. The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230 (+0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218 (+0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774 (-0.3%), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472 (-0.8%). The W6800’s average benchmark score of 135,396 places it right in the middle of this group, with all rivals within 1% of its score. This suggests the W6800 is a representative performer for its tier, neither significantly ahead nor behind its direct competitors.

The H200 NVL’s average benchmark score of 334,891 is 2.47x the W6800’s average of 135,396. Even the W6800’s best API-specific score — 174,420 in Geekbench Metal — is below the H200 NVL’s OpenCL score. And the H200 NVL’s score comes from a single benchmark, whereas the W6800 has three benchmark results. The W6800’s Vulkan score of 109,961 is its lowest, and its OpenCL score of 121,808 is its middle result. The H200 NVL has no Vulkan or Metal results because it lacks API support for those tests.

The data shows a one-sided compute comparison. The H200 NVL wins the only head-to-head test by a 174.9% margin, and its percentile rank of 100 versus 96 confirms it operates in a higher performance class. The W6800’s wins are functional rather than numerical: it supports APIs and display outputs that the H200 NVL does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA H200 NVL | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 |

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

| Architecture | Hopper | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 80,000 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | 814 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 98.3M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1365 MHz | 1575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 2322 MHz |

| Memory Size | 141 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 6144 bit | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 16896 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 528 | 240 |

| ROPs | 24 | 96 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | 528 | None listed |

| FP32 | 60.32 TFLOPS | 17.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 120.6 TFLOPS | 35.67 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 42.84 GPixel/s | 222.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 942.5 GTexel/s | 557.3 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 600 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (LxH) | 267 mm x 111 mm | 267 mm x 120 mm |

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

| Release Date | 2024-11-17 | 2021-06-07 |

| Successor | Server Blackwell | None listed |