AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA H200 NVL occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and the data confirms they are not direct competitors. The Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot, 55 W workstation card with 8 GB of memory, designed for conventional display output and client-side graphics workloads. The H200 NVL is a dual-slot, 600 W server accelerator with 141 GB of HBM3e memory and no display outputs, built for compute-intensive data center tasks.

Based on the recorded data, the H200 NVL is the clear performance leader in raw compute. It delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400, a 7.7x advantage. Its FP16 performance of 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) dwarfs the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1). The H200 NVL also holds a 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the W7400 sits at the 50th percentile. The W7400, however, is the only one of the two that can drive displays, with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and it consumes a fraction of the power.

The data indicates that the H200 NVL is for server deployments where massive memory capacity and tensor core throughput are paramount. The W7400 is for professional workstations where display connectivity, low power draw, and a compact footprint matter more than peak compute. There is no benchmark overlap in the database, so direct performance comparisons are limited to architectural and specification analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The H200 NVL's memory bandwidth is 4.89 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s for the W7400.

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

A: No. The H200 NVL has no display outputs listed in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and requires a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The H200 NVL's average benchmark score is 334891. It is 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200 (score 345482), 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (score 317994), 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC (score 369831), and 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (score 295763).

Q: What is the interface and slot size for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and is single-slot. The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and is dual-slot.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures with distinct design goals. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish". It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip based on Hopper architecture, belonging to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses a 6 nm node at TSMC, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node, also at TSMC. Transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The W7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2M transistors per mm². The H200 NVL has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, reaching 98.3M transistors per mm².

The shader configurations diverge sharply. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores listed. The H200 NVL has 16896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. It has no ray tracing cores listed. The absence of tensor cores on the W7400 and ray tracing cores on the H200 NVL indicates specialized roles: the former targets graphics rendering, the latter targets matrix math for AI and HPC workloads.

The API support also separates them. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not a graphics-oriented part.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a wide gap in nearly every measurable category. Clock speeds are the first notable difference: the W7400 runs at a base of 330 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz, while the H200 NVL runs at 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the W7400 uses 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the H200 NVL uses 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major divider. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL offers 28x more capacity and 28x more bandwidth.

Compute rates reinforce the performance gap. The W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate. The H200 NVL achieves 42.84 GPixel/s pixel rate and 942.5 GTexel/s texture rate. The H200 NVL has a 7.6x advantage in texture rate, but the W7400 has a 1.6x advantage in pixel rate, reflecting the H200 NVL's lower ROP count.

Physical specifications also differ. The W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, single-slot, with no power connectors. The H200 NVL is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, dual-slot, with an 8-pin EPS power connector. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the H200 NVL uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the H200 NVL has none.

Release dates differ by about nine months: the W7400 launched in August 2025, while the H200 NVL launched in November 2024. The H200 NVL has a listed predecessor, "Server Ada", and successor, "Server Blackwell". The W7400's predecessor is "Radeon Pro Vega" and it has no successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs. The W7400 has no recorded benchmarks at all, with an average benchmark score of 0. The H200 NVL has a single recorded benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 334891.

The H200 NVL's score places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345482, which is 3.1% higher than the H200 NVL. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369831, 9.4% higher. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317994, 5.3% lower. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295763, 13.2% lower.

The W7400, with no benchmark data, cannot be positioned against these scores. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs suggests mid-tier placement, but the absence of measured scores means no quantitative comparison is possible within the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in scenarios that require display output and low power consumption. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional graphics work. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot design allow installation in compact workstations without additional power connectors. Its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, which exceeds the H200 NVL's 42.84 GPixel/s, indicates stronger rasterization throughput per ROP. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 enables standard graphics APIs.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins in compute-heavy server deployments. Its 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 and 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 performance are far beyond the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS in both precisions. Its 141 GB HBM3e memory with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth supports massive datasets that would never fit in the W7400's 8 GB frame buffer. Its 528 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for matrix operations, which the W7400 lacks entirely. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bus bandwidth of the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection.

The H200 NVL's benchmark percentile confirms its elite status. At the 100th percentile, it sits at the top of the database. Its nearest rival scores show it is competitive with the fastest server accelerators, trailing the B200 by 3.1% and the B300 SXM6 AC by 9.4%, while leading the MI300X by 5.3% and the L40S by 13.2%.

The data draws a clean line: the W7400 is a low-power graphics workstation card, and the H200 NVL is a high-power compute accelerator. The choice depends entirely on workload type. Graphics and display tasks point to the W7400. AI training, inference, and large-scale compute point to the H200 NVL. No benchmark in the database suggests any overlap in their intended applications.