AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counts for both cards are zero. This absence of comparative test data is itself informative: the two cards occupy such different segments of the hardware landscape that no standardized comparison suite has produced a common score.

What does exist is a single benchmark profile for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900. The Geekbench OpenCL test returns a score of 84,379, while the Geekbench Vulkan test returns 137,070. Averaging these two recorded results yields a mean benchmark score of 110,725. This places the W7900 at the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a position that indicates it outperforms roughly 93 percent of recorded graphics hardware in the aggregate metric.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile versus all GPUs stands at 50, which reflects the median position assigned to hardware without measured results rather than an actual performance observation. The nearest rivals list for the H20 is empty, meaning there are no comparable cards with recorded deltas to position it against.

For the W7900, the nearest rivals provide context for its aggregate score. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II averages 109,617, which is 1 percent below the W7900's average. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X averages 107,342, sitting 3.2 percent lower. On the other side, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944, which is 2.8 percent above the W7900, and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395, putting it 3.2 percent ahead. These deltas frame the W7900 as a mid-pack performer among its closest recorded competitors, not an outlier in either direction.

The lack of direct comparison data means the analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences to infer relative strengths. The W7900's recorded average score of 110,725 is a concrete data point, while the H20's zero score is a placeholder for missing information. No percentage advantage between the two can be computed from the database, and no benchmark win can be assigned to either card.

Where Each One Wins

Without head-to-head results, the win analysis shifts to what the recorded specifications imply about workload suitability. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and an equal 61.32 TFLOPS of FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio between these two precision formats. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 but reaches 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio. The data suggests the W7900 would be the stronger choice for workloads that rely on single-precision math, since its FP32 figure exceeds the H20's by a substantial margin.

The memory systems diverge sharply. The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, producing 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, producing 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The H20's memory bandwidth is more than four times higher, and its capacity is double. For datasets that exceed 48 GB, the H20 clearly has the advantage. For workloads that fit within the W7900's capacity, the raw bandwidth difference still strongly favors the H20 in any memory-bound scenario.

Rasterization and pixel throughput tell the opposite story. The W7900 has 192 ROPs and a pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s, while the H20 has only 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s. The W7900's pixel rate is roughly ten times higher. Texture rate also favors the W7900 at 958.1 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20. The W7900 records 384 TMUs compared to 312 for the H20. These figures point to the W7900 as the card for traditional graphics rendering tasks.

The H20 counters with 312 tensor cores and a much higher transistor count of 80,000 million, compared to 57,700 million for the W7900. The H20's architecture is oriented toward the tensor-heavy compute that dominates modern server workloads. The W7900 has 96 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the H20's specification list, which records no RT cores at all. The W7900 also supports DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the H20 has no display outputs, confirming that the H20 is not intended for interactive graphics or direct display driving.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a manufacturing process node of 5 nm and the same foundry, TSMC, but diverge in nearly every other architectural choice. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip built on the Hopper architecture, with no recorded codename. The W7900 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, while the H20 belongs to the Server Hopper generation.

The die sizes and transistor counts reveal different design priorities. The W7900's die measures 529 mm² and holds 57,700 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The H20's die measures 814 mm² and holds 80,000 million transistors, yielding a density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The H20 is physically larger and packs more transistors overall, but the W7900 achieves a higher density per area.

Shading unit counts differ substantially. The W7900 records 6,144 shading units, while the H20 records 9,984. Despite having fewer shading units, the W7900 achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 61.32 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS for the H20. This suggests the W7900's shading units operate at higher clock frequencies. The W7900 boosts to 2495 MHz, while the H20 boosts to 1980 MHz. The base clocks are closer: 1760 MHz for the W7900 and 1830 MHz for the H20.

Memory technology marks the clearest architectural split. The W7900 uses GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus, while the H20 uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus. The H20's bus width is sixteen times wider. The memory clock rates are recorded differently: the W7900 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the H20 runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective. The bandwidth outcome favors the H20 at 4.03 TB/s versus 864.0 GB/s.

The H20 includes 312 tensor cores, a feature absent from the W7900's specification list, which records no tensor core count. The W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the H20's list. The H20 supports the PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The H20 lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The physical formats could not be more different. The W7900 is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width, drawing power through two 8-pin connectors. The H20 is an SXM module with no recorded dimensions, no power connector information, and no display outputs. The W7900 has a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the H20 has a suggested PSU of 800 W. The power draw is recorded as 295 W for the W7900 and 400 W for the H20.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear divide. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is a graphics-first card with display outputs, ray tracing cores, a high pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s, and an FP32 throughput of 61.32 TFLOPS. Its 48 GB of GDDR6 memory with 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth serves rendering workloads well. Its average benchmark score of 110,725 and 94th percentile ranking confirm it as a capable performer in the database.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is a compute-first accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a tensor core count of 312. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth targets large-scale data processing. The FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS exceeds the W7900's FP16 figure, and the 80,000 million transistor count reflects a larger, more complex silicon design.

The W7900 suits workloads that need direct graphics output, high single-precision compute, and traditional rasterization. The H20 suits workloads that need massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and tensor operations, with no need for display output. Neither card can substitute for the other in their respective domains. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means no direct score comparison exists, but the specification differences make the intended use cases unambiguous.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no benchmark entries and an average score of zero.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory.

Q: Which card provides higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS of FP32. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 support display outputs?

A: No. The H20 NVL16 has no display outputs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 312 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 records no tensor cores, but it does have 96 ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W7900 | NVIDIA H20 NVL16 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Navi 31 | GH100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Hopper |

| Codename | Plum Bonito | None recorded |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Server Hopper (Hxx) |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1760 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2495 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz, 5.3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 864.0 GB/s | 4.03 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 9984 |

| TMUs | 384 | 312 |

| ROPs | 192 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 96 | None recorded |

| Tensor Cores | None recorded | 312 |

| Pixel Rate | 479.0 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 958.1 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.32 TFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 295 W | 400 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 800 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-05-25 | 2025-09-01 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Server Ada |

| Successor | None recorded | Server Blackwell |

| Launch MSRP | 3,999 USD | None recorded |