AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

The Verdict

The database contains two very different professional accelerators that target distinct workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a single-slot, low-power workstation card with a full benchmark profile, while the NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with no recorded benchmark results in the database. For the W7500, the data shows an average benchmark score of 16415, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at a nearly identical 16408 average score. The H20, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, which reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than a lack of capability. The W7500 is suitable for workstation tasks where a compact, self-powered card with 8 GB of memory and multiple display outputs is required. The H20 targets server deployments where massive 96 GB HBM3 capacity and tensor core compute are the defining characteristics, though the database provides no benchmark evidence for its performance.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip with an RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip with a Hopper architecture. It is built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC, with 80,000 million transistors on a much larger 814 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The density difference indicates that the H20 packs more transistors into each square millimeter, which is consistent with its server-oriented design.

The W7500 features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It includes 28 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and only 24 render output units. It includes 312 tensor cores but no ray tracing cores listed. This distribution shows the H20 prioritizes parallel compute and tensor operations, while the W7500 balances traditional rasterization with ray tracing capability.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The W7500 runs at a 1500 MHz base clock and 1700 MHz boost clock, with memory at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective. The H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost, with memory at 1313 MHz or 5.3 Gbps effective. Despite the H20 having higher core clocks, its pixel rate is only 47.52 GPixel/s compared to the W7500's 108.8 GPixel/s, because the W7500 has more render output units. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the H20 delivers 617.8 GTexel/s versus the W7500's 190.4 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. That is a 16-fold difference in capacity and a substantial bandwidth advantage for the H20. The H20 also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards. The W7500 has nine recorded benchmark scores across various test suites, while the H20 has zero recorded benchmarks. The W7500's results include a Geekbench OpenCL score of 58213, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 68634, and Passmark scores for DirectX 10 (65), DirectX 11 (125), DirectX 12 (46), DirectX 9 (200), G2D (1174), G3D (13368), and GPU compute (5910). The H20's lack of benchmark data means no direct comparison can be made from recorded measurements.

The W7500's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance level. Its average score of 16415 is statistically indistinguishable from the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16408, a 0 percent delta. It sits 0.3 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16361), 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16351), and 0.5 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504). These narrow margins indicate the W7500 delivers performance comparable to a range of mid-to-high-end GPUs from different generations and market segments.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows the two cards differ in nearly every measurable category. The process node differs: 6 nm for the W7500 versus 5 nm for the H20. Transistor count differs by roughly a factor of six: 13,300 million versus 80,000 million. Die size differs by a factor of four: 204 mm² versus 814 mm². Memory size differs by a factor of twelve: 8 GB versus 96 GB. Memory type differs: GDDR6 versus HBM3. Bus width differs from 128-bit to 6144-bit. Bandwidth differs from 256.0 GB/s to 4.03 TB/s.

Compute resources differ across the board. Shading units: 1792 versus 9984. Texture units: 112 versus 312. Render output units: 64 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: 28 versus none. Tensor cores: none versus 312. The FP32 throughput is 12.19 TFLOPS for the W7500 and 39.54 TFLOPS for the H20. FP16 throughput is 24.37 TFLOPS for the W7500 and 79.07 TFLOPS for the H20, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and suggests a 900 W power supply. The W7500 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 216 mm length, 115 mm height, and 20 mm width. The H20 is an SXM module with no recorded dimensions. The W7500 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the H20 provides no display outputs.

API support differs completely. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for graphics API workloads in the traditional sense. The release dates differ as well: the W7500 appeared on 2023-08-02, and the H20 appeared on 2024-01-31. The W7500 has a predecessor named Radeon Pro Vega, while the H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 provides 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 provides 256.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Can the NVIDIA H20 output video to displays?

A: No. The database lists the H20 with no display outputs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Do these cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for all three graphics APIs.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The W7500 has a 70 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The H20 has a 500 W TDP and suggests a 900 W power supply.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The W7500 has a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The H20 has a density of 98.3M per mm² with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

Q: Does the W7500 have tensor cores?

A: No. The W7500 lists no tensor cores and instead has 28 ray tracing cores. The H20 has 312 tensor cores but no ray tracing cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in scenarios that favor its compact, low-power, graphics-oriented design. Its 70 W TDP means it can run without external power connectors, making it suitable for systems with modest power budgets. Its 108.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, enabled by 64 render output units, gives it a strong fill rate advantage over the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. The card provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, so it supports multi-monitor workstation configurations. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for many professional graphics workloads, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it compatible with standard graphics software stacks. The W7500 also carries a launch MSRP of 429 USD.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in server compute scenarios. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the W7500's memory subsystem. Its 9984 shading units and 312 tensor cores provide substantially higher raw compute throughput: 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.19 TFLOPS, and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 versus 24.37 TFLOPS. The 312 texture mapping units deliver 617.8 GTexel/s texture throughput. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides double the lane width and a newer generation compared to the W7500's PCIe 4.0 x8. The SXM module form factor indicates the H20 is designed for dense server installations, and its 500 W TDP with a suggested 900 W power supply reflects a data center power envelope.

The benchmark data shows the W7500 performing in the 59th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 16415. The H20 has no recorded benchmarks, so its percentile of 50 reflects missing data rather than measured performance. The W7500's nearest rivals all cluster within 0.5 percent of its average score, suggesting its performance class is well established. For graphics workstations with display requirements and modest power budgets, the W7500 is the only option with recorded performance data. For server-side compute with large memory capacity and tensor acceleration, the H20 offers specifications that the W7500 cannot match, even though the database contains no benchmark results to quantify that advantage.