AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

NVIDIA H200 NVL decisively leads the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X in raw compute benchmarks, but they are engineered for entirely different ecosystems. The data shows a 169% delta in Geekbench OpenCL, positioning the H200 NVL as a dominant server compute part, while the W6800X is a specialized Apple Mac Pro graphics card. Choose the H200 NVL for peak FP32, FP16, and memory bandwidth workloads; choose the W6800X for its display outputs and macOS integration, despite its far lower compute scores.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous from the benchmark data: NVIDIA H200 NVL is the superior compute hardware. It wins the only shared head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 334,891 against the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X's 124,498 — a 169% advantage. This places the H200 NVL in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6800X sits at the 97th percentile. The H200 NVL also holds its own against its closest rivals; it trails the NVIDIA B200 by only 3.1% and the B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, while leading the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3% and the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2%. The W6800X, by contrast, is tightly clustered with its nearest rivals: it is within 3.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, within 2.8% of the RTX A5500, within 2.6% of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, and within 1.1% of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB.

For whom is each card? The H200 NVL is for server deployments requiring massive memory (141 GB HBM3e) and extreme bandwidth (4.89 TB/s), with no display outputs — it is a pure compute accelerator. The W6800X is for Mac Pro users needing a GPU with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt outputs, a 200 W power draw, and end-of-life production status. The H200 NVL's FP32 throughput (60.32 TFLOPS) is nearly four times the W6800X's (16.03 TFLOPS), and its FP16 (120.6 TFLOPS) is also nearly four times higher (32.06 TFLOPS). If the workload is compute-heavy and runs in a server context, the H200 NVL is the only rational choice. If the workload requires video output and macOS compatibility, the W6800X is the only one that can do the job.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are two fundamentally different designs. The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip on the Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process, with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die — a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The H200 NVL has far more compute resources: 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 528 tensor cores, versus the W6800X's 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 60 ray tracing cores. The H200 NVL has no RT cores listed, while the W6800X has no tensor cores.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The W6800X uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The H200 NVL's memory clock is 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), while the W6800X's is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Clock speeds also differ: the H200 NVL runs at a base of 1365 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz; the W6800X runs at 1800 MHz base and 2087 MHz boost. The H200 NVL has no display outputs and no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all N/A); the W6800X supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card with an 8-pin EPS connector and 600 W TDP; the W6800X is a quad-slot Apple MPX card with a 200 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 334,891, which is 169% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X's score of 124,498.

Q: Can the NVIDIA H200 NVL output video to a display?

A: No. The H200 NVL has no display outputs, whereas the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt outputs.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The H200 NVL's HBM3e memory delivers 4.89 TB/s across a 6144-bit bus, while the W6800X's GDDR6 memory provides 512.0 GB/s across a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL is listed as Active, released on 2024-11-17, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is End-of-life, released on 2021-08-02.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The H200 NVL achieves 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the W6800X's 16.03 TFLOPS, representing a roughly 3.8x advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The H200 NVL reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; the W6800X supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The H200 NVL uses 80,000 million transistors on a 5 nm process; the W6800X uses 26,800 million on 7 nm. Die size is 814 mm² versus 520 mm², and transistor density is 98.3M/mm² versus 51.5M/mm². Base clock is 1365 MHz for the H200 NVL versus 1800 MHz for the W6800X; boost clock is 1785 MHz versus 2087 MHz. Memory size is 141 GB versus 32 GB; memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6; bus width is 6144-bit versus 256-bit; bandwidth is 4.89 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 16,896 versus 3,840; TMUs are 528 versus 240; ROPs are 24 versus 96. The H200 NVL has 528 tensor cores and no listed RT cores; the W6800X has 60 RT cores and no tensor cores. Pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL versus 200.4 GPixel/s for the W6800X; texture rate is 942.5 GTexel/s versus 500.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 60.32 TFLOPS versus 16.03 TFLOPS; FP16 is 120.6 TFLOPS versus 32.06 TFLOPS. TDP is 600 W versus 200 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus quad-slot. Power connectors are 8-pin EPS versus Apple MPX; suggested PSU is 1000 W versus 550 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus Apple MPX. The H200 NVL has no display outputs; the W6800X has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt. The H200 NVL's dimensions are 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the W6800X is 267 mm length and 120 mm height. The H200 NVL has a launch MSRP of none listed; the W6800X has a launch MSRP of 2,799 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498. The delta is 169%, meaning the H200 NVL is more than 2.5 times faster in this workload. This is consistent with the broader performance context: the H200 NVL's average benchmark score is 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, scores 345,482 (3.1% higher), and the B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831 (9.4% higher). On the other side, the AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 (5.3% lower), and the NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763 (13.2% lower). The W6800X's average benchmark score is 160,671, which is the average of its Geekbench Metal score of 196,844 and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,498. Its nearest rivals are all within a tight band: the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 162,504 (1.1% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 164,894 (2.6% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 165,217 (2.8% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094 (3.3% higher). The H200 NVL's 169% delta over the W6800X dwarfs any of these inter-rival gaps, confirming that the two cards are not in the same performance class.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins in every compute-oriented category. It dominates FP32 performance (60.32 TFLOPS versus 16.03 TFLOPS), FP16 performance (120.6 TFLOPS versus 32.06 TFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (4.89 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s). Its 141 GB memory capacity is over four times the W6800X's 32 GB, and its texture rate is nearly double (942.5 GTexel/s versus 500.9 GTexel/s). The H200 NVL also wins the only benchmark where both are present, with a 169% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For server-side AI training, large-scale data processing, or any workload that can leverage tensor cores and massive HBM3e capacity, the H200 NVL is the clear winner. Its 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU indicate it is designed for data center power delivery, not consumer convenience.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X wins in specific niche areas. It has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt), which the H200 NVL completely lacks, making it the only option for driving monitors. Its pixel rate is significantly higher (200.4 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s), and it has more ROPs (96 versus 24), which benefits rasterization-heavy graphics tasks. Its base and boost clocks are higher (1800 MHz and 2087 MHz versus 1365 MHz and 1785 MHz), and it supports modern graphics APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) while the H200 NVL reports none. The W6800X also has a much lower TDP (200 W versus 600 W) and lower suggested PSU (550 W versus 1000 W), making it easier to integrate into a workstation. For macOS-based creative work involving video output and graphics acceleration, the W6800X is the only functional choice, despite its far lower compute scores. The H200 NVL's wins are in raw compute density and bandwidth; the W6800X's wins are in display connectivity, rasterization throughput, and power efficiency.