AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D versus the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. Both products show an average benchmark score of zero, and neither lists any nearest rivals with comparative scores or delta percentages. The wins counter for each side is also zero, which means the database currently holds no direct performance measurements between these two accelerators.

This absence of benchmark data is itself informative. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D falls into the Radeon Pro Navi generation, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 belongs to the Server Hopper series. Their target environments differ sharply: one is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, the other is a server module without any video connectors. Without recorded scores, any quantitative comparison must rely on the architectural specifications captured in the database.

What can be stated from the recorded figures is the theoretical compute ceiling. The AMD card lists FP32 throughput at 52.99 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA module lists 39.54 TFLOPS. That puts the AMD part roughly 34 percent higher in single-precision floating-point work, based solely on the listed numbers. In FP16, the situation reverses: NVIDIA lists 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while AMD lists 52.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA accelerator therefore shows about 49 percent higher half-precision throughput in the database.

Pixel and texture rates also diverge. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D lists a pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists 47.52 GPixel/s and 617.8 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is large, but that metric reflects the rasterization-oriented design of the AMD GPU versus the compute-focused architecture of the Hopper part.

Memory bandwidth shows a different story. The NVIDIA module lists 4.03 TB/s from HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, while the AMD card lists 864.0 GB/s from GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus. The NVIDIA part holds a substantial bandwidth advantage, roughly 4.7 times higher according to the recorded numbers. Memory capacity also favors NVIDIA: 96 GB versus 48 GB.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture and belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip contains 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a density of 98.3M per mm². The NVIDIA die is larger and packs more transistors, but the AMD die achieves higher density.

Shading unit counts differ considerably. The AMD chip has 6,144 shading units, while the NVIDIA chip has 9,984. Texture mapping units favor AMD at 384 versus 312, while raster operation units strongly favor AMD at 192 versus 24. The NVIDIA chip includes 312 tensor cores, while the AMD chip lists no tensor cores. The AMD chip includes 96 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA chip lists no dedicated RT core count.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card lists a base clock of 1327 MHz and a boost clock of 2156 MHz. The NVIDIA module lists a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The AMD part has a higher boost clock, while the NVIDIA part has a higher base clock.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The AMD card uses 48 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 2250 MHz memory clock, resulting in 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA module uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 1313 MHz memory clock, resulting in 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA module has eight times the memory bus width and nearly five times the bandwidth.

The power envelope differs as well. The AMD card lists a TDP of 295 W with dual 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The NVIDIA module lists a TDP of 400 W with no power connectors listed and a suggested PSU of 800 W. The NVIDIA module uses an SXM form factor, while the AMD card is a triple-slot PCIe card.

Interface and outputs show the divergent purposes. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and provides three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The NVIDIA module uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and provides no display outputs. API support also differs: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three graphics APIs.

Physical dimensions are recorded only for the AMD card: 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width. The NVIDIA module has no dimensions listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute according to the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D lists 52.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists 39.54 TFLOPS. The AMD card holds a roughly 34 percent advantage in single-precision throughput based on the recorded figures.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA module has double the capacity and roughly 4.7 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which product supports display outputs?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D supports displays, with three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists no outputs, consistent with its server-oriented SXM form factor.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA GH100 chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The AMD Navi 31 chip contains 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip has roughly 39 percent more transistors, while the AMD chip has higher transistor density at 109.1M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm².

Q: Which product has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists 312 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D lists no tensor cores in the database, reflecting the different compute focus of the two architectures.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D lists a TDP of 295 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists a TDP of 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W. The NVIDIA module requires more power and uses an SXM form factor rather than PCIe slot power.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two products built for different workloads, not direct competitors. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, rasterization hardware, and a triple-slot PCIe form factor. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is a server compute module with no display outputs, tensor cores, and an SXM form factor.

For FP32 compute, the AMD card shows a higher figure at 52.99 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. For FP16 work, the NVIDIA module shows a higher figure at 79.07 TFLOPS versus 52.99 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA module also offers double the memory capacity and nearly five times the bandwidth, which suits large model workloads. The AMD card offers higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and ray tracing cores, which suits graphics-oriented tasks.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either product, so real-world performance cannot be ranked from measurements. The specification differences indicate that the AMD card targets graphics-heavy workstation use, while the NVIDIA module targets server-side compute with tensor operations. Neither product can substitute for the other in their primary roles.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 in the database:

• Chip: Navi 31 versus GH100
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Hopper
• Codename: Plum Bonito versus not listed
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Transistors: 57,700 million versus 80,000 million
• Die size: 529 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor density: 109.1M / mm² versus 98.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1327 MHz versus 1830 MHz
• Boost clock: 2156 MHz versus 1980 MHz
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective versus 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 48 GB versus 96 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM3
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 6144 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s
• Shading units: 6144 versus 9984
• TMUs: 384 versus 312
• ROPs: 192 versus 24
• RT cores: 96 versus not listed
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 312
• Pixel rate: 414.0 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 827.9 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 52.99 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS
• FP16: 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 295 W versus 400 W
• Slot width: Triple-slot versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 800 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm versus not listed
• Release date: 2025-09-24 versus 2025-09-01
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus Server Ada
• Successor: not listed versus Server Blackwell

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D shows advantages in several recorded metrics. Its FP32 throughput of 52.99 TFLOPS exceeds the NVIDIA part by roughly 34 percent. Its pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s is nearly nine times higher than the 47.52 GPixel/s of the NVIDIA module. Its texture rate of 827.9 GTexel/s is about 34 percent higher than 617.8 GTexel/s. The AMD card includes 192 ROPs versus 24, and 96 ray tracing cores that the NVIDIA part does not list. The AMD card also carries display outputs, which the NVIDIA module lacks entirely. These figures point to graphics rendering, rasterization, and ray-traced workstation workloads as the AMD card's domain.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 shows advantages in other recorded metrics. Its FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS is roughly 49 percent higher than the AMD card's 52.99 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s is about 4.7 times higher than 864.0 GB/s. Its memory capacity of 96 GB is double the 48 GB of the AMD card. The NVIDIA module includes 312 tensor cores, while the AMD card lists none. The NVIDIA module also has more shading units at 9984 versus 6144, a higher base clock at 1830 MHz versus 1327 MHz, and a newer PCIe interface at 5.0 x16 versus 4.0 x16. These figures point to large-scale compute, tensor operations, and memory-heavy server workloads as the NVIDIA module's domain.

The release dates show the NVIDIA module came first on 2025-09-01, followed by the AMD card on 2025-09-24. The NVIDIA module has a listed successor in Server Blackwell, while the AMD card lists no successor. The AMD card lists a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA module lists Server Ada as its predecessor.

Both products remain in active production according to the database. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded. Both hold the same 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, which reflects the absence of benchmark scores rather than any measured performance parity. The data supports a clear split: choose the AMD card for graphics output and rasterization-heavy tasks, choose the NVIDIA module for tensor compute and memory-intensive server workloads.