AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and the NVIDIA H20. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the win counters for both products stand at zero. This absence of comparative test data means any direct performance comparison must be derived from the individual benchmark scores and specification details available in the database.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 carries two recorded benchmark results. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 108245 points, while in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 129706 points. These results place the W7700 at the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 118976. The NVIDIA H20, by contrast, has no benchmark results recorded at all. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile ranking sits at the 50th percentile, which in this context reflects the absence of measured data rather than a competitive performance tier.

The nearest rivals for the W7700 provide useful context for interpreting its measured performance. The NVIDIA GB10 holds an average score of 117393, which is 1.3% ahead of the W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117088, a 1.6% advantage. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB records 114395, trailing the W7700 by 4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113944, which is 4.4% behind. These deltas indicate that the W7700 sits in a tightly contested performance band, with its closest rivals within a few percentage points on average scores.

Because the H20 lacks any benchmark entries, the data cannot support a head-to-head win analysis. The W7700 has measurable results and a percentile rank, while the H20 does not. The specification sheet for the H20 shows a far larger memory capacity and higher transistor count, but without benchmark numbers, the database cannot quantify how those specifications translate into real-world performance. The absence of head-to-head data is the primary finding of this comparison: the two products cannot be directly ranked using the current recorded measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every category where measured data exists. It has two benchmark scores, a 95th percentile ranking, and an average score of 118976. The H20 has none of these. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan APIs, the W7700 demonstrates measurable capability, with its Vulkan score of 129706 exceeding its OpenCL score of 108245 by a significant margin. This suggests the W7700 performs particularly well in Vulkan-based applications, likely due to its RDNA 3.0 architecture and its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface.

The H20 wins in capacity and scale. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory dwarfs the W7700's 16 GB of GDDR6. Its memory bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s is orders of magnitude higher than the 576.0 GB/s available on the W7700. The H20 also has 9984 shading units compared to 3072 on the W7700, and 312 tensor cores, while the W7700 lists no tensor core count. These specifications point to a product designed for large-scale server workloads, not for measured client-side benchmarks. The H20's production status is listed as Active, and its release date is January 31, 2024, while the W7700 is from November 12, 2023.

The H20 also wins on interface modernity, using PCIe 5.0 x16 compared to the W7700's PCIe 4.0 x16. However, the H20 has no display outputs, while the W7700 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1. This makes the W7700 the clear choice for any workload requiring visual output, whereas the H20 is a compute-only accelerator. The data indicates that the two products target different segments: the W7700 is a workstation GPU with display support and measured API performance, while the H20 is a server module with massive memory and no display capability.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip, built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename Wheat Nas. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, specifically the Navi III Series. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC, with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip, built on Hopper architecture, with the generation labeled Server Hopper (Hxx). It also uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, but packs 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The H20 has nearly three times the transistor count and more than twice the die area.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. The W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s. The H20's memory bus is 24 times wider, and its bandwidth is approximately seven times higher. Clock speeds also differ: the W7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, while the H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The W7700 boosts 620 MHz higher, which partially compensates for its smaller silicon.

Compute unit counts diverge sharply. The W7700 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, with 48 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and only 24 render output units, with 312 tensor cores and no ray tracing cores listed. The H20's shading unit count is over three times higher, but its render output unit count is a quarter of the W7700's. This suggests the H20 is optimized for compute throughput rather than pixel output. The pixel rate confirms this: the W7700 achieves 249.6 GPixel/s, while the H20 achieves only 47.52 GPixel/s. The texture rates are closer, with the W7700 at 499.2 GTexel/s and the H20 at 617.8 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16 performance also show different tradeoffs. The W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The H20 is about 24% ahead in FP32 and 24% ahead in FP16. Power consumption scales accordingly: the W7700 has a TDP of 190 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The H20 is an SXM module with no power connector listed, while the W7700 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector.

API support also separates the two. The W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This makes the W7700 viable for graphics and compute APIs, while the H20 is a compute-only accelerator without standard graphics API support. The H20's predecessor is listed as Server Ada and its successor as Server Blackwell, indicating a server product line, while the W7700's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118976, while the NVIDIA H20 has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The H20 also has a 6144-bit memory bus compared to the W7700's 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the NVIDIA H20 has no display outputs listed.

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, which is higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 48 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA H20 lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What power supply is recommended for each?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the NVIDIA H20 has a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The process node is the same (5 nm at TSMC), but the transistor counts differ: 28,100 million for the W7700 versus 80,000 million for the H20. Die size is 346 mm² for the W7700 and 814 mm² for the H20. Transistor density is 81.2M per mm² for the W7700 and 98.3M per mm² for the H20.

Clock speeds differ: base clock is 1900 MHz for the W7700 and 1830 MHz for the H20. Boost clock is 2600 MHz for the W7700 and 1980 MHz for the H20. Memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for the W7700, and 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective for the H20.

Memory configuration differs entirely: 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth for the W7700, versus 96 GB HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth for the H20.

Compute units differ: shading units are 3072 for the W7700 and 9984 for the H20. TMUs are 192 versus 312. ROPs are 96 versus 24. The W7700 has 48 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the H20 has 312 tensor cores and no ray tracing cores.

Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s for the W7700 and 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s for the W7700 and 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20. FP32 is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16 is 63.90 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS.

TDP is 190 W for the W7700 and 500 W for the H20. The W7700 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the H20 is an SXM module with no power connector listed. Suggested PSU is 450 W for the W7700 and 900 W for the H20.

Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7700 and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H20. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7700 and none for the H20. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the W7700, while the H20 lists N/A for all three.

Dimensions differ: the W7700 is 241 mm long and 111 mm high, while the H20 has no dimensions listed. The W7700 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the H20 has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates differ: November 12, 2023 for the W7700 and January 31, 2024 for the H20. The H20 has an Active production status, while the W7700 does not have one listed.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products with almost no overlap in measured performance. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation GPU with real benchmark scores, display outputs, and graphics API support. Its 95th percentile ranking and average score of 118976 place it among capable performers, with its closest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, only 1.3% ahead. The W7700's Vulkan score of 129706 exceeds its OpenCL score of 108245, suggesting particular strength in Vulkan workloads.

The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with no benchmark results, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth indicate a product built for memory-intensive compute tasks, not for client-side graphics or measured API performance. Its 500 W TDP and SXM module form factor further confirm its data-center orientation.

The verdict from the recorded data: the W7700 is the choice for any workload requiring display output, graphics API compatibility, or measured benchmark performance. The H20 is the choice for large-scale memory capacity and raw compute throughput, despite lacking any recorded benchmark evidence. The two products do not compete in the same segment, and the database reflects this separation. The W7700 has measurable wins in every recorded benchmark category, while the H20 wins on capacity, bandwidth, and compute unit counts. The data cannot support a direct performance ranking because the H20 has no benchmark entries. Each product serves a distinct purpose, and the available measurements align with those purposes.