AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM and NVIDIA H20 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the recorded data confirms that their intended workloads barely overlap. The RX 7400 OEM is a compact, single-slot RDNA 3.0 part built for low-power client systems, while the H20 is a 500 W SXM module aimed at server acceleration with 96 GB of HBM3. Benchmark results show no direct head-to-head scores in the database, so the comparison relies entirely on architectural specifications, memory subsystems, and compute throughput figures.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM wins in any scenario that demands standard display output and consumer graphics API support. It provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the NVIDIA H20 has no display outputs at all. The RX 7400 OEM also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H20 lists N/A for all three APIs. For desktop rendering, media playback, or any workload that requires a frame buffer presented to a monitor, only the AMD card is viable.

The RX 7400 OEM also wins on power efficiency in a strict sense: its 55 W TDP versus the H20's 500 W TDP means the AMD part consumes substantially less power per installed unit. The suggested PSU rating for the RX 7400 OEM is 250 W, while the H20 suggests 900 W. In multi-GPU client builds or small form factor systems, the AMD card's single-slot profile and single 6-pin power connector make it the only practical choice.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 rate is 39.54 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the RX 7400 OEM, and its FP16 rate reaches 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) for the AMD part. The H20 carries 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth, while the RX 7400 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 172.8 GB/s. For large model inference, scientific simulation, or any memory-bound server task, the H20 dominates by a wide margin.

The H20 also has more shading units (9984 versus 1792), more TMUs (312 versus 112), and a much higher texture rate (617.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s). Its tensor cores, 312 in total, give it an explicit acceleration pathway that the RX 7400 OEM lacks entirely. The AMD card does have 28 ray accelerators, but the H20's RT core field is null, so ray tracing acceleration is only present on the AMD side.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing nodes and design philosophies. The RX 7400 OEM uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while the H20 uses a 5 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts differ enormously: 13,300 million for the AMD chip versus 80,000 million for the NVIDIA chip. Die sizes follow the same pattern: 204 mm² for Navi 33 versus 814 mm² for GH100. The transistor density figures reflect this: 65.2M per mm² for AMD and 98.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The architecture names reveal the generation gap. The RX 7400 OEM is built on RDNA 3.0 under the codename Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip, classified under Server Hopper (Hxx). Their predecessors and successors diverge as well: the AMD card follows Navi II and leads to Navi IV, while the H20 follows Server Ada and leads to Server Blackwell.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The RX 7400 OEM uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The bus width difference is 48x, and the bandwidth difference is roughly 23x. Clock speeds tell a different story: the H20 runs at a base of 1830 MHz and boost of 1980 MHz, while the RX 7400 OEM runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, with memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus the H20's 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective).

The RX 7400 OEM has 64 ROPs, which is higher than the H20's 24 ROPs, but the H20 has 312 TMUs versus 112 on the AMD card. The pixel rates reflect the ROP count: 70.40 GPixel/s for AMD versus 47.52 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The H20's higher texture rate comes from its much larger TMU count combined with higher clocks.

The H20 is a server module with no display outputs and no consumer API support. The RX 7400 OEM is a client card with full API coverage. The H20 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the RX 7400 OEM uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The H20 is listed as an SXM Module, with no power connectors specified, while the RX 7400 OEM is a single-slot card with 1x 6-pin power connector and dimensions of 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between the RX 7400 OEM and the H20, and both cards show zero average benchmark scores with no nearest rivals listed. Therefore, the quantitative comparison must be drawn from the specification tables, which provide the only measurable points of difference.

In FP32 compute, the H20 achieves 39.54 TFLOPS, which is 5.0x the RX 7400 OEM's 7.885 TFLOPS. In FP16, the gap widens further: the H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for the AMD card, a 10.0x advantage. The H20's FP16 throughput benefits from its 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves the FP32 rate for double-rate FP16, while the RX 7400 OEM operates at a 1:1 ratio, offering no such acceleration.

Memory bandwidth is the most extreme difference: 4.03 TB/s for the H20 versus 172.8 GB/s for the RX 7400 OEM. That is a 23.3x gap in the H20's favor. The H20's 96 GB capacity is 12x the RX 7400 OEM's 8 GB. The bus width difference is 6144-bit versus 128-bit, a 48x margin.

The RX 7400 OEM wins in pixel throughput: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20, a 1.48x advantage. The AMD card also wins on ROP count (64 versus 24) and on display outputs (4 total versus 0). The H20 wins on TMUs (312 versus 112), texture rate (617.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s), shading units (9984 versus 1792), and transistor count (80,000 million versus 13,300 million).

The H20 has a higher boost clock (1980 MHz versus 1100 MHz) and base clock (1830 MHz versus 330 MHz). The RX 7400 OEM has a higher memory clock in effective terms (10.8 Gbps versus 5.3 Gbps), but this does not compensate for the H20's vastly wider memory bus. The H20's tensor cores (312) have no equivalent on the AMD card, while the RX 7400 OEM's ray accelerators (28) have no listed counterpart on the H20.

Power draw is a major differentiator: the RX 7400 OEM is rated at 55 W, while the H20 is rated at 500 W. The suggested PSU for the AMD card is 250 W versus 900 W for the NVIDIA module. The RX 7400 OEM also wins on physical integration flexibility, with its single-slot design and 6.6-inch length, versus the H20's SXM form factor with no stated dimensions.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct buying decisions based on workload requirements. For desktop or workstation use requiring a monitor connection, the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the only option, as the NVIDIA H20 provides no display outputs and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The RX 7400 OEM also fits into low-power systems with its 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU, and its 8 GB GDDR6 memory is adequate for standard client rendering tasks.

For server-side compute with massive memory needs, the NVIDIA H20 is the clear choice. Its 96 GB HBM3 pool and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth enable large-scale data processing that the RX 7400 OEM cannot approach. The H20's 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 throughput and 312 tensor cores provide dedicated acceleration for AI workloads, while the RX 7400 OEM has no tensor units at all.

The RX 7400 OEM is also the only card with ray tracing hardware, listing 28 ray accelerators, though the H20's RT core field is null rather than explicitly zero. The AMD card's 64 ROPs and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate stronger rasterization throughput per watt, but the H20's raw compute and memory bandwidth make it suitable for entirely different tasks.

There is no scenario where the two cards compete for the same buyer. The RX 7400 OEM suits client builds that need a low-profile, power-efficient GPU with standard outputs. The H20 suits data center installations that prioritize memory capacity and compute density over display capability or consumer API compatibility. The 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU for the H20 require a server platform, while the RX 7400 OEM's 55 W TDP fits a desktop power budget.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 4.03 TB/s bandwidth from 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has 172.8 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 support display output?

A: No. The H20 lists "No outputs" for display connections, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. The NVIDIA H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for each card?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32. The H20 is about 5.0x higher.

Q: How many tensor cores does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has 312 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has no tensor cores; its tensor core field is null.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The NVIDIA H20 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.