AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and NVIDIA H20. Both cards hold a 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The absence of comparative test data means the two accelerators cannot be ranked against each other through measured performance metrics. What the data does provide is a clear architectural and specification profile for each, allowing an analytical comparison of their theoretical compute capacities.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS in the same precision. That puts the AMD part roughly 34% higher in single-precision floating-point throughput. In FP16, the situation reverses: the NVIDIA H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with its 2:1 rate, whereas the AMD card matches its FP32 figure at 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1). The NVIDIA part therefore leads in half-precision by about 49%. Texture rate favors AMD at 827.9 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, a gap of roughly 34%. Pixel rate is heavily AMD-favored at 414.0 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s, a factor of about 8.7 times. Memory bandwidth strongly favors NVIDIA: 4.03 TB/s versus 864.0 GB/s, a difference of about 4.7 times.

These figures indicate two very different compute philosophies. The AMD card is built for high-throughput rasterization and general FP32 workloads, while the NVIDIA H20 is oriented toward memory-bound and reduced-precision tasks. The lack of direct benchmark scores leaves these theoretical maxima as the only quantitative basis for comparison, and they point to a clear split: AMD wins in pixel throughput, texture throughput, and FP32; NVIDIA wins in FP16 and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS, which is about 34% higher than the NVIDIA H20's 39.54 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3 memory, while the AMD card provides 864.0 GB/s from GDDR6. The NVIDIA part leads by a factor of roughly 4.7.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, whereas the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server-oriented design without display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has a TDP of 295 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA H20 lists tensor cores, with 312 on the chip. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D does not list tensor cores in its specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture, belonging to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the die characteristics differ substantially. The AMD chip has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The NVIDIA GH100 packs 80,000 million transistors onto an 814 mm² die, yielding a density of 98.3M per mm². The NVIDIA die is larger by about 54% in area and holds about 39% more transistors, though its density is slightly lower.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The AMD card has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, only 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed. The NVIDIA part has more shading units (about 62% more) and more tensor cores, but far fewer ROPs. The AMD part has more TMUs (about 23% more) and a dramatically higher pixel rate. Clock speeds also differ: the AMD card runs at a base of 1327 MHz and boost of 2156 MHz, while the NVIDIA H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The AMD boost clock is about 9% higher, but the NVIDIA base clock is about 38% higher.

Memory architecture is the most fundamental divergence. The AMD card uses 48 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The bus width difference is a factor of 16, and the bandwidth difference is nearly a factor of 5. Effective memory speed also differs: 18 Gbps for AMD versus 5.3 Gbps for NVIDIA, reflecting the different memory technologies. The NVIDIA H20 is an SXM module with no display outputs, while the AMD card is a triple-slot PCIe board with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA H20 has no power connector listing because it is an SXM module, while the AMD card uses 2x 8-pin connectors.

The Verdict

The data indicates that these products target separate domains. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, a triple-slot design, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its high pixel rate (414.0 GPixel/s), high texture rate (827.9 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (52.99 TFLOPS) position it for traditional graphics rendering and compute tasks that rely on single-precision math. The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with no display outputs, an SXM module form factor, and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. Its strengths are 96 GB of HBM3 memory, 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, 79.07 TFLOPS FP16, and 312 tensor cores, which point toward large-scale AI inference and training workloads where memory capacity and reduced-precision throughput matter more than rasterization.

The release dates show the NVIDIA H20 arrived earlier, on 2024-01-31, while the AMD card launched on 2025-09-24. The NVIDIA part lists a predecessor (Server Ada) and a successor (Server Blackwell), while the AMD card lists only a predecessor (Radeon Pro Vega). Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP. The production status for both is Active. Given the absence of benchmark scores, the verdict rests on specifications: the AMD card suits graphics-oriented workflows, the NVIDIA H20 suits memory-intensive and tensor-based compute. The 50th percentile ranking for both indicates the database treats them as mid-tier among all GPUs, but their architectural profiles suggest they serve non-overlapping user bases.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and codename Plum Bonito. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture and no codename listed. The AMD card has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die; the NVIDIA H20 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² for AMD versus 98.3M per mm² for NVIDIA. Base clocks are 1327 MHz versus 1830 MHz, boost clocks are 2156 MHz versus 1980 MHz, and memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 48 GB GDDR6 versus 96 GB HBM3, with bus widths of 384 bit versus 6144 bit and bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s. Shading units are 6144 versus 9984, TMUs are 384 versus 312, ROPs are 192 versus 24, ray tracing cores are 96 versus none listed, and tensor cores are none listed versus 312. Pixel rate is 414.0 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s, texture rate is 827.9 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, FP32 is 52.99 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 52.99 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS. TDP is 295 W versus 500 W, slot width is triple-slot versus SXM Module, power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus none listed, and suggested PSU is 600 W versus 900 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs. API support is DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for AMD, all N/A for NVIDIA. Dimensions are 280 mm length, 110 mm height, 51 mm width for AMD, all null for NVIDIA. Release dates are 2025-09-24 versus 2024-01-31. Predecessors are Radeon Pro Vega versus Server Ada, and the NVIDIA card has a successor (Server Blackwell) while AMD lists none.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D wins in every metric tied to graphics rendering and single-precision compute. Its pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s is approximately 8.7 times the NVIDIA H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, making it the clear choice for rasterization-heavy workloads. Its texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part by about 34%, and its FP32 throughput of 52.99 TFLOPS is about 34% higher. The AMD card also has more ROPs (192 versus 24), more TMUs (384 versus 312), and ray tracing cores (96 versus none). Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, along with display outputs, makes it functional as a standalone workstation GPU. The higher boost clock (2156 MHz versus 1980 MHz) and lower TDP (295 W versus 500 W) further favor AMD for graphics-oriented tasks.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in memory capacity, bandwidth, half-precision compute, and tensor operations. Its 96 GB of HBM3 is double the AMD card's 48 GB, and its 4.03 TB/s bandwidth is roughly 4.7 times the AMD figure. FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS is about 49% higher than the AMD card's 52.99 TFLOPS. The 312 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for matrix operations, which the AMD card lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part also has more shading units (9984 versus 6144) and a higher base clock (1830 MHz versus 1327 MHz). Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface offers double the lane bandwidth of the AMD card's PCIe 4.0 x16. The SXM module form factor and absence of display outputs indicate a data-center orientation where the card is installed in servers with separate graphics handling. The release date of 2024-01-31 also makes it the earlier-available product, while the AMD card arrived on 2025-09-24.