AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA H200 NVL compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245. This gives the H200 NVL a 209.4% advantage in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has an average benchmark score of 334,891, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 averages 118,976, placing it in the 95th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL features 141 GB of HBM3e memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The memory bandwidth also differs greatly, with the H200 NVL at 4.89 TB/s versus 576.0 GB/s for the W7700.

Q: Are these GPUs aimed at the same use case?

A: No. The H200 NVL is a server accelerator with no display outputs, designed for compute workloads. The W7700 is a workstation GPU with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, intended for professional visualization and rendering tasks.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W, while the W7700 has a TDP of 190 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The H200 NVL uses an 8-pin EPS connector, whereas the W7700 uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, reflecting its compute-only server orientation.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA H200 NVL and AMD Radeon PRO W7700 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The H200 NVL is built on the GH100 chip using the Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 80,000 million transistors packed into an 814 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. It also uses TSMC's 5 nm process but contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, for a density of 81.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores, but no dedicated RT cores. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores, with no tensor cores. This reflects the H200 NVL's focus on tensor-heavy AI workloads versus the W7700's balanced approach for graphics and ray tracing.

The memory architectures are entirely different. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e across a 6144-bit bus, while the W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The H200 NVL's memory clock is 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), whereas the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Despite the W7700's faster per-pin memory clock, the H200 NVL's massive bus width delivers far greater total bandwidth.

Clock speeds also show the divergence. The H200 NVL operates at a base of 1365 MHz and boost of 1785 MHz. The W7700 runs significantly higher at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, reflecting its workstation design that prioritizes single-thread performance for graphics tasks.

The H200 NVL has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, and the NVIDIA H200 NVL wins that test decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the H200 NVL scores 334,891 versus 108,245 for the W7700, a 209.4% lead. This makes the H200 NVL the clear winner for raw compute throughput.

However, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has its own domain of advantage based on its feature set. The W7700 supports graphics APIs that the H200 NVL lacks entirely, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It also provides display outputs, enabling direct connection to monitors, which the H200 NVL cannot do. For professional visualization, CAD, and content creation workflows that require real-time graphics rendering, the W7700 is the functional choice.

The W7700 also wins on efficiency in certain respects. Its TDP of 190 W is substantially lower than the H200 NVL's 600 W, and its suggested PSU of 450 W versus 1000 W means it can operate in far less demanding system environments. The W7700's higher clock speeds (2600 MHz boost versus 1785 MHz) indicate strong per-core performance for latency-sensitive graphics workloads.

The H200 NVL wins in every metric related to raw compute capacity. Its FP32 performance of 60.32 TFLOPS more than doubles the W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 120.6 TFLOPS also exceeds the W7700's 63.90 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 942.5 GTexel/s for the H200 NVL is nearly double the W7700's 499.2 GTexel/s. However, the W7700 wins on pixel rate, delivering 249.6 GPixel/s versus only 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL, reflecting the H200 NVL's minimal ROP count of 24 compared to the W7700's 96 ROPs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, while the W7700 uses Navi 32 with RDNA 3.0. Their generations differ: Server Hopper (Hxx) versus Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series).

Transistor counts and die sizes are vastly different. The H200 NVL has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, while the W7700 has 28,100 million on a 346 mm² die. Transistor density favors the H200 NVL at 98.3M per mm² versus 81.2M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the W7700. The H200 NVL runs at 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, while the W7700 runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) for the H200 NVL versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7700.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts diverge sharply. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores. The H200 NVL has no RT cores, while the W7700 has no tensor cores.

Performance rates reflect these configurations. The H200 NVL produces 42.84 GPixel/s and 942.5 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 60.32 TFLOPS and FP16 at 120.6 TFLOPS. The W7700 produces 249.6 GPixel/s and 499.2 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 31.95 TFLOPS and FP16 at 63.90 TFLOPS.

Power specifications differ: the H200 NVL has a 600 W TDP, 8-pin EPS power connector, and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP, single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards.

The bus interface differs, with PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H200 NVL and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7700. Display outputs exist only on the W7700, which offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1; the H200 NVL has none. API support likewise exists only on the W7700.

Physical dimensions show the H200 NVL at 267 mm (10.5 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, while the W7700 measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height.

Release dates differ, with the H200 NVL launching on 2024-11-17 and the W7700 on 2023-11-12. The H200 NVL's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. The W7700's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. The W7700 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the H200 NVL has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245. The delta is 209.4% in favor of the H200 NVL, meaning the H200 NVL delivers more than three times the OpenCL performance of the W7700.

To contextualize the H200 NVL's score, its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 (3.1% ahead of the H200 NVL), the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 (5.3% behind), the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC at 369,831 (9.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (13.2% behind). This places the H200 NVL in the upper tier of server accelerators, just behind the newest B-series parts but ahead of the MI300X and L40S.

For the W7700, its nearest rivals are much closer in performance. The NVIDIA GB10 scores 117,393, which is 1.3% ahead of the W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088, 1.6% ahead. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114,395, 4% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113,944, 4.4% ahead. These margins are tight, showing the W7700 sits in a competitive cluster of workstation GPUs.

The H200 NVL's 334,891 OpenCL score is more than triple the W7700's 108,245. In terms of percentile ranking, the H200 NVL sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the W7700 sits at the 95th percentile. This five-percentile gap represents a massive performance chasm despite both being high-ranking products.

The W7700 does have a second benchmark entry, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,706, which is higher than its OpenCL score. However, the H200 NVL has no Vulkan score recorded, so no comparison is possible on that test. The H200 NVL's single benchmark entry is its OpenCL score, and that is the only direct comparison point available.

The Verdict

The data makes the segmentation clear. The NVIDIA H200 NVL is a compute-first server accelerator with overwhelming OpenCL performance, 209.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7700. Its 141 GB of HBM3e memory, 4.89 TB/s bandwidth, and 528 tensor cores position it for large-scale AI training, scientific computing, and data center workloads where raw throughput is paramount. Its 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms it belongs in the top tier of compute hardware.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 serves a different purpose entirely. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, 48 RT cores, and full graphics API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 make it a workstation card for professional visualization, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated design workflows. Its 249.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, more than five times that of the H200 NVL, shows it is optimized for rasterization and display output rather than compute density. Its 95th percentile ranking is respectable, but its nearest rivals are all within 4.4%, indicating a highly competitive mid-tier workstation segment.

The specification differences reinforce this split. The H200 NVL has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and requires a 1000 W PSU. The W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports all major graphics APIs, and runs on a 450 W PSU. The H200 NVL uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, though this matters little for the W7700's intended workloads.

Who should pick which? Organizations running AI model training, large-scale inference, or high-performance computing should choose the NVIDIA H200 NVL, based on its 334,891 OpenCL score and position just 3.1% behind the newer NVIDIA B200. Professionals working in CAD, video editing, 3D visualization, or any graphics-intensive field should choose the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, as it is the only one of the two with display outputs and graphics API support. The W7700's launch MSRP of 999 USD places it in a workstation price class, while the H200 NVL's server orientation suggests a different procurement path entirely.

The verdict is unambiguous: these are not competing products. They occupy different tiers and serve different functions. The H200 NVL wins the compute benchmark by a wide margin, but the W7700 wins on graphics capability, efficiency, and accessibility. Choose based on workload, not raw score alone.