AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA H20?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, built on a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip based on Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between these two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA H20 features 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, a difference of 12x in capacity and roughly 23x in bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption profile for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W, uses an SXM Module slot width, and requires a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA H20 has no display outputs, indicating it is designed for compute-heavy server workloads rather than graphics rendering to screens.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, while the NVIDIA H20 was released earlier on 2024-01-31.

Q: How do the API support profiles compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its server-oriented positioning with no graphics API support.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA H20 represent fundamentally different design philosophies within the database. The W7400 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture using the Navi 33 chip, a compact 204 mm² die fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its transistor count of 13,300 million yields a density of 65.2M transistors per mm². The H20, by contrast, uses the GH100 chip on Hopper architecture, a massive 814 mm² die on a 5 nm TSMC process with 80,000 million transistors, achieving a density of 98.3M per mm².

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The W7400 runs a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The H20 operates at a much higher base clock of 1830 MHz and boost of 1980 MHz, with memory at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The H20's higher clock speeds reflect its server-grade compute focus, while the W7400's lower clocks align with its low-power workstation profile.

The compute resources differ in scale and type. The W7400 packs 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, with no tensor cores. The H20 contains 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, only 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores, with no dedicated RT cores listed. The H20's tensor core count of 312 indicates a heavy emphasis on AI and deep learning workloads, while the W7400's RT cores target ray tracing in graphics applications.

Memory architecture is the most striking divergence. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s. The bandwidth differential is approximately 23x in favor of the H20, a gap that fundamentally changes the types of workloads each card can handle effectively.

Physical form factors also differ. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors. The H20 is an SXM Module, a board-level form factor with no display outputs, designed for dense server integration. The bus interfaces reflect this: the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling both the lane count and the protocol generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA H20, and both cards hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. This means the quantitative comparison must rely on the recorded specification-level data rather than workload-specific scores.

In raw compute throughput, the H20 dominates. The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, a 5x advantage. In FP16, the H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, giving the H20 a 10x lead in half-precision compute. This positions the H20 for AI training and inference tasks that rely heavily on reduced-precision arithmetic.

Texture processing heavily favors the H20. The H20's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s is 5x the W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s, reflecting the H20's 312 TMUs against 112. Pixel rate, however, favors the W7400: 70.40 GPixel/s versus the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. This is a 48% advantage for the AMD card, driven by its 64 ROPs versus the H20's 24 ROPs. The W7400's higher pixel throughput indicates stronger fill-rate performance for traditional rasterization tasks.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest gap. The H20's 4.03 TB/s is approximately 23x the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and memory-bound compute kernels. The W7400's 8 GB capacity may suffice for workstation graphics, but the H20's 96 GB enables multi-billion parameter model handling that the W7400 cannot approach.

Clock speeds favor the H20 in absolute terms. The H20's boost clock of 1980 MHz is 80% higher than the W7400's 1100 MHz, and its base clock of 1830 MHz is more than 5x the W7400's 330 MHz. However, the W7400's lower clocks are offset by its dramatically lower power envelope of 55 W versus 500 W, a 9x difference in TDP.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following fields where the two cards differ:

• Chip: Navi 33 (AMD) versus GH100 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Hopper
• Codename: Hotpink Bonefish versus null
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Process Node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 13,300 million versus 80,000 million
• Die Size: 204 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor Density: 65.2M / mm² versus 98.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 330 MHz versus 1830 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1100 MHz versus 1980 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 8 GB versus 96 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus HBM3
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 6144 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s
• Shading Units: 1792 versus 9984
• TMUs: 112 versus 312
• ROPs: 64 versus 24
• RT Cores: 28 versus null
• Tensor Cores: null versus 312
• Pixel Rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS
• FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W versus 500 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus SXM Module
• Power Connectors: None versus null
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 900 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus No outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm versus null
• Release Date: 2025-08-02 versus 2024-01-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus Server Ada
• Successor: null versus Server Blackwell

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in scenarios that demand rasterization efficiency and display output. Its 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, 48% higher than the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. The card's 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it suitable for workstation graphics, CAD visualization, and content creation where rendering to a monitor is essential. Its 55 W TDP with no power connectors enables deployment in compact systems with minimal cooling and power infrastructure, and its 168 mm length fits standard workstation chassis.

The NVIDIA H20 wins decisively in compute-intensive server workloads. Its FP32 of 39.54 TFLOPS is 5x the W7400's output, and its FP16 of 79.07 TFLOPS is 10x. The 312 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and training, a capability the W7400 lacks entirely. The 96 GB HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth enables processing of datasets that far exceed the W7400's 8 GB capacity, making the H20 appropriate for large language models, scientific simulations, and data analytics. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the transfer bandwidth of the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8, reducing data movement bottlenecks.

The SXM Module form factor and 500 W TDP of the H20 indicate data-center deployment in multi-GPU server configurations, where its lack of display outputs is irrelevant. The 900 W suggested PSU and dense compute resources align with rack-mounted infrastructure rather than desktop workstations.

The W7400's lower transistor density of 65.2M / mm² versus the H20's 98.3M / mm² reflects the older process node and less dense design, but its 55 W power draw makes it a low-heat option for always-on professional workstations. The H20's 5 nm process enables higher density and clock speeds, but the resulting 500 W TDP requires enterprise cooling solutions.

For workloads involving ray tracing, the W7400's 28 RT cores provide dedicated hardware acceleration, while the H20 lists no RT cores, indicating no hardware ray tracing support. For workloads involving AI, the H20's 312 tensor cores are a clear advantage, while the W7400 has none.

The release dates show the H20 arrived earlier in 2024-01-31, while the W7400 followed in 2025-08-02. The H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell, while the W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no successor listed. Both cards remain in active production according to the database.