AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and NVIDIA H20 occupy entirely different corners of the hardware landscape, and the recorded data makes that split unambiguous. The Radeon PRO W7800 carries two benchmark results in the database: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 154366 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 175422. These produce an average benchmark score of 164894, placing it at the 97th percentile among all GPUs tracked. The H20, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark entries, an average benchmark score of zero, and sits at the 50th percentile. That percentile gap alone frames the comparison: one product has measurable graphics compute performance, the other has none in the database.

The Radeon PRO W7800 wins in every metric where measurement exists. It delivers 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the H20’s 39.54 TFLOPS, a 5.71 TFLOPS lead. In FP16, the W7800 reaches 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the H20’s 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel throughput heavily favors AMD: 323.2 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s, a roughly 6.8x advantage. Texture rate also goes to AMD at 707.0 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. The W7800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H20 lists N/A for all three APIs. Display outputs tell a similar story: the W7800 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the H20 has no outputs at all.

The H20 does win in memory capacity and bandwidth. It carries 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus at 576.0 GB/s. That is a 64 GB capacity advantage and a 3.45 TB/s bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. The H20 also integrates 312 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the W7800’s specification sheet. Shader count favors NVIDIA as well: 9984 shading units versus 4480, and 312 TMUs versus 280. The H20’s 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die exceed the W7800’s 57,700 million on 529 mm².

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The W7800 wins where graphics rendering, pixel output, and client-side compute matter. The H20 wins where massive memory pools, tensor operations, and server-scale data movement matter. Neither product is a substitute for the other.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages with different design priorities. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Plum Bonito codename. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip, built on Hopper architecture and classified under Server Hopper (Hxx). Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node, but the similarities end there.

Die size and transistor counts diverge sharply. The H20’s GH100 measures 814 mm² and packs 80,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The W7800’s Navi 31 measures 529 mm² with 57,700 million transistors, for a higher density of 109.1M per mm². Despite the smaller die, AMD achieves better transistor packing density.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The HBM3 implementation gives NVIDIA a 7x advantage in bus width and roughly 7x in bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the W7800 boosts to 2525 MHz from an 1895 MHz base, while the H20 boosts to 1980 MHz from an 1830 MHz base. The W7800’s memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the H20’s memory runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, though the H20’s far wider bus makes raw bandwidth comparisons moot.

Compute block counts show different allocation strategies. The W7800 has 4480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray tracing cores. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, but only 24 ROPs. The H20 has no listed ray tracing cores but includes 312 tensor cores. That ROP count (24 versus 128) explains the massive pixel rate gap. The H20 is not designed for rasterization output; it is designed for compute throughput and tensor workloads. The W7800’s higher ROP count and ray tracing hardware make it a graphics-capable processor.

Form factor and power delivery reinforce the architectural split. The W7800 is a dual-slot card, 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, using 2x 8-pin power connectors with a 260 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. The H20 is an SXM module with no display outputs, a 500 W TDP, and a 900 W suggested PSU. The H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The H20 has no power connector listing because it is a module, not a card. Release timing also differs: the W7800 launched 2023-04-12, the H20 launched 2024-01-31. The W7800’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega; the H20’s predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products, and the H20 has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The comparison must therefore rely on the W7800’s measured results and the H20’s specification-level capabilities.

The Radeon PRO W7800’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 154366 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 175422 are the only raw performance numbers in the database for either product. Its average benchmark score of 164894 places it at the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database provide context for that score. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 averages 165217, a 0.2% lead over the W7800. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation averages 166094, 0.7% ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X averages 168574, 2.2% ahead. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB averages 162504, which is 1.5% behind the W7800. The W7800 sits in the middle of a tight cluster of professional GPUs, within roughly 2% of all four rivals.

Against the H20, no such comparison is possible from measured data. The H20’s average benchmark score is zero and its percentile is 50, which reflects the absence of entries rather than a performance verdict. What the database does allow is a specification-level comparison of compute throughput. The W7800’s 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 is 14.4% higher than the H20’s 39.54 TFLOPS. In FP16, the W7800’s 90.50 TFLOPS is 14.5% higher than the H20’s 79.07 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the W7800 by 14.4% as well: 707.0 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors the W7800 overwhelmingly at 323.2 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s, a 580% advantage.

Memory bandwidth reverses the picture completely. The H20’s 4.03 TB/s is 7x the W7800’s 576.0 GB/s. Capacity favors the H20 by 3x: 96 GB versus 32 GB. The H20’s 312 tensor cores have no counterpart on the W7800, and its 9984 shading units are 2.23x the W7800’s 4480. The H20’s 500 W TDP is nearly double the W7800’s 260 W, and its suggested PSU of 900 W exceeds the W7800’s 600 W by 50%.

The data shows a product pair with almost no overlap in intended workload. The W7800 wins every graphics-oriented metric, while the H20 wins every memory and tensor-oriented metric. The W7800 also edges the H20 in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, which is notable given the H20’s larger die and higher power envelope.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two distinct purchasing decisions depending on workload type. For graphics rendering, pixel-heavy output, and client-side compute, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is the clear choice. It has measured benchmark scores, a 97th percentile ranking, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, OpenGL 4.6, and four display outputs. Its 323.2 GPixel/s pixel rate is in a different class from the H20’s 47.52 GPixel/s. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput exceed the H20’s by roughly 14%. The W7800 also carries a lower 260 W TDP versus 500 W, and a 600 W suggested PSU versus 900 W, making it far easier to integrate into a workstation. Its launch MSRP is 2,499 USD.

For memory-bound server workloads, tensor compute, and large model inference, the NVIDIA H20 has the specification-level advantages that matter. Its 96 GB of HBM3 at 4.03 TB/s is a 3x capacity and 7x bandwidth advantage over the W7800. Its 312 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for tensor operations that the W7800 lacks entirely. Its 9984 shading units and 312 TMUs give it raw parallel throughput potential that exceeds the W7800’s block counts. The H20’s SXM module form factor, PCIe 5.0 interface, and lack of display outputs indicate a headless accelerator designed for server racks, not workstations. Its 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU reflect that positioning.

The W7800’s nearest rival cluster shows it is competitive with the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (0.2% behind), RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.7% behind), and Radeon Pro W6900X (2.2% behind), while ahead of the A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%. Those deltas are small enough that any of these cards would deliver similar average benchmark performance. The W7800’s advantage over the H20 is not in that cluster because the H20 has no comparable score.

Neither product is a universal solution. The W7800 cannot match the H20’s memory pool or tensor throughput, and the H20 cannot render graphics or drive displays. The H20’s zero benchmark entries and 50th percentile ranking in the database mean that any performance assessment of it rests on specifications alone, not measured results. The W7800’s measured scores provide concrete evidence of its capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164894, while the NVIDIA H20 has an average benchmark score of 0 due to having no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7800 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7800 is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500, 0.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, 2.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X, and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 support graphics APIs or display outputs?

A: No. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs. The W7800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA H20 lists tensor cores, with 312 units. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has no tensor core listing but includes 70 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The W7800 has a 260 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. The H20 has a 500 W TDP and a 900 W suggested PSU. The W7800 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors; the H20 is an SXM module with no connector listing.