AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of these two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation.

Q: How do their manufacturing processes compare?

A: The AMD card is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA card uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The AMD die measures 204 mm² with 13,300 million transistors, whereas the NVIDIA die is 814 mm² with 80,000 million transistors.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 2.04 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support display outputs?

A: No. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no display outputs, as it is a server-oriented accelerator.

Q: What are the power requirements listed in the database?

A: The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 350 W, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 750 W.

Q: How do the cards differ in physical dimensions?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The H100 CNX is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no width listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits the two cards into entirely different workload categories. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the only one of the pair with display outputs, specifically 4x DisplayPort 2.1, which positions it for workstation graphics tasks that require driving multiple monitors. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it the only card in this comparison with a full graphics API stack. Its single-slot profile and lack of power connectors further reinforce a deployment profile centered on compact, low-power visual workstations.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX, by contrast, has no display outputs and no listed graphics APIs. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. The database shows 80 GB of HBM2e memory with a 5120-bit bus and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth, figures that dwarf the AMD card's 8 GB GDDR6 and 172.8 GB/s. The H100 CNX also carries 456 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification sheet. This makes the NVIDIA card the clear choice for large-scale compute workloads, particularly those involving tensor operations or datasets that exceed 8 GB.

The wins are therefore mutually exclusive: the AMD card wins on display connectivity, graphics API support, physical compactness, and power efficiency. The NVIDIA card wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, tensor capability, and raw shader throughput. Each card dominates a different usage domain, and there is no meaningful overlap in their respective strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two architectures diverge at nearly every level. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 33 chip, featuring 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses Hopper on the GH100 chip, featuring 14,592 shading units, 456 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 456 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different as well. AMD pairs its chip with GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while NVIDIA uses HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus. This explains the massive bandwidth gap: 172.8 GB/s versus 2.04 TB/s, a difference of roughly 11.8 times in favor of the NVIDIA card.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect different design philosophies. The AMD chip packs 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs 80,000 million transistors into 814 mm², yielding 98.3M per mm². NVIDIA achieves both a larger absolute transistor count and a higher density on its 5 nm process.

Compute precision handling also differs. The AMD card lists FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it processes half-precision and single-precision at the same rate. The NVIDIA card lists FP16 at 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio to FP32, meaning its half-precision throughput is four times its FP32 rate of 53.84 TFLOPS. This indicates a deliberate bias toward mixed-precision and tensor-heavy workloads on the Hopper architecture.

The bus interfaces differ as well. AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The NVIDIA card also has no display outputs and no listed DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, consistent with its server accelerator role.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a base clock of 690 MHz and a boost clock of 1845 MHz, with memory clocked at 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity differs by an order of magnitude: 8 GB GDDR6 for AMD versus 80 GB HBM2e for NVIDIA. Bus width is 128-bit versus 5120-bit, and bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 2.04 TB/s.

Shading units number 1792 on the AMD card versus 14,592 on the NVIDIA card. Texture mapping units are 112 versus 456. ROPs are 64 versus 24. The AMD card lists 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores; the NVIDIA card lists no ray tracing cores and 456 tensor cores.

Pixel rate favors AMD at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate heavily favors NVIDIA at 841.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS for AMD versus 53.84 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) for AMD versus 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1) for NVIDIA.

TDP is 55 W for AMD versus 350 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 750 W.

Physical dimensions: AMD measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm; NVIDIA measures 267 mm by 111 mm with no width listed.

Release dates differ: AMD was released on 2025-08-02, NVIDIA on 2023-03-20. The AMD predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega with no successor. The NVIDIA predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. Both are marked as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for this pair, so the comparison must be drawn from the recorded specification-level measurements.

The largest single advantage for the NVIDIA H100 CNX is FP16 throughput. At 215.4 TFLOPS, it is approximately 27.3 times the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS. This is by far the widest gap in any compute metric. FP32 follows at 53.84 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a factor of about 6.8 times in NVIDIA's favor.

Memory bandwidth delivers the next major NVIDIA advantage. At 2.04 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, the H100 CNX offers roughly 11.8 times the bandwidth of the Radeon PRO W7400. Memory capacity is 10 times larger at 80 GB versus 8 GB.

Texture rate also favors NVIDIA at 841.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a factor of about 6.8 times. Shading units and tensor cores scale similarly, with NVIDIA holding 14,592 shading units versus 1,792 and 456 tensor cores versus none.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in pixel rate, at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s, a lead of roughly 1.6 times. This is notable because pixel rate depends on ROP count and clock speed, and AMD pairs 64 ROPs with a 1100 MHz boost clock, while NVIDIA pairs just 24 ROPs with an 1845 MHz boost clock. The AMD card's ROP advantage overcomes the clock deficit in this specific metric.

AMD also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms. The 55 W TDP versus 350 W TDP means the AMD card draws roughly 6.4 times less power. However, the NVIDIA card delivers far more compute per watt in raw throughput terms when comparing FP32 and FP16 figures.

In terms of physical footprint, AMD is smaller in length (168 mm versus 267 mm) and height (69 mm versus 111 mm), and uses one slot instead of two.

The release timeline also differs: the AMD card entered the database as released on 2025-08-02, while the NVIDIA card was released on 2023-03-20, making the NVIDIA part earlier to market by over two years.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with almost no functional overlap. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a compact, single-slot graphics card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, a 55 W TDP, and no power connectors. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 28 ray tracing cores give it a defined role in graphics-oriented workstations that require multiple displays and standard graphics APIs.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a server accelerator with no display outputs and no graphics API support. Its 80 GB HBM2e memory, 2.04 TB/s bandwidth, 456 tensor cores, and 215.4 TFLOPS FP16 throughput place it squarely in large-scale compute and tensor workloads. Its 53.84 TFLOPS FP32 and 841.3 GTexel/s texture rate further confirm a compute-first design. The 350 W TDP and 8-pin EPS connector indicate a data-center power profile, not a workstation desktop card.

There is no benchmark score data in the database for either card, and no head-to-head results are recorded. The comparison therefore rests entirely on specification-level measurements. Those measurements show that the AMD card wins in pixel rate, physical size, power draw, display connectivity, and graphics API coverage. The NVIDIA card wins in every raw compute and memory metric: FP32, FP16, texture rate, shading units, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and bus width.

The choice between them depends on workload category, not on overall superiority. Users whose tasks require monitor output, standard graphics APIs, low power draw, and a single-slot footprint would find the Radeon PRO W7400 aligned with those requirements. Users whose tasks require large memory capacity, tensor acceleration, and maximum FP16 or FP32 throughput would find the H100 CNX aligned with those requirements. The database does not show a single metric where both cards compete directly, so the verdict is a functional split rather than a ranking.