AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the process node difference between the AMD Radeon RX 7400 and the NVIDIA H20?

A: The RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the H20 uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry. The H20's smaller node contributes to its higher transistor density of 98.3M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7400.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between these two cards?

A: The RX 7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s, which is roughly 14 times the bandwidth of the RX 7400.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The H20 draws over 11 times the power of the RX 7400.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX?

A: No. The RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, indicating it is not designed for consumer graphics APIs.

Q: What are the tensor core counts for each GPU?

A: The H20 has 312 tensor cores, while the RX 7400 has no tensor cores listed. This reflects the H20's server/AI focus versus the RX 7400's consumer rasterization focus.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The H20 was released on 2024-01-31, while the RX 7400 was released on 2025-08-07, making the RX 7400 roughly a year and a half newer.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 and NVIDIA H20 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The RX 7400 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation and uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip and is part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation, built on a 5 nm TSMC process.

The transistor counts diverge sharply. The RX 7400 packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The H20 contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, which is roughly six times the transistor count and four times the die area. The H20's transistor density of 98.3M per mm² exceeds the RX 7400's 65.2M per mm², reflecting the newer process node and denser server-oriented design.

Compute resources differ in scale and type. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. The H20 has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RX 7400 has no tensor cores. The H20's shading unit count is over 5.5 times that of the RX 7400, but its ROP count is lower, indicating a design optimized for compute throughput rather than pixel output.

Clock speeds also differ. The RX 7400 has a base clock of 1452 MHz, a boost clock of 2300 MHz, and a game clock of 2200 MHz. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 7400's boost clock is 320 MHz higher than the H20's, but the H20's higher base clock suggests sustained server workloads behave differently.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The RX 7400 uses GDDR6 with 8 GB capacity, a 128-bit bus, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses HBM3 with 96 GB capacity, a 6144-bit bus, and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The H20's memory bus is 48 times wider, and its bandwidth is approximately 14 times higher.

The interface and form factor also reflect their intended uses. The RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, is dual-slot, has a 1x 6-pin power connector, and outputs 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, is an SXM module, has no power connectors listed, and has no display outputs. The RX 7400 is a consumer graphics card; the H20 is a server accelerator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7400 but no benchmark entries for the NVIDIA H20. This absence is itself informative. The H20's average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The RX 7400, by contrast, has eight recorded benchmark scores across multiple test suites.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7400 scores 1103. The PassMark suite shows a wide spread: DirectX 9 scores 176, DirectX 10 scores 59, DirectX 11 scores 97, and DirectX 12 scores 44. The G2D score is 1209, while the G3D score is 11897. The GPU compute score is 5152.

The RX 7400's average benchmark score is 2467, placing it at the 17th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 8040S with an average score of 2440 and a delta of 1.1%, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M at 2433 with a delta of 1.4%, the Intel HD Graphics 610 at 2425 with a delta of 1.8%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M at 2422 with a delta of 1.9%.

The delta percentages indicate that the RX 7400 sits extremely close to these low-end integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs. A 1.1% lead over the Radeon 8040S and a 1.9% lead over the GeForce GT 710M place the RX 7400 at the very bottom of the performance spectrum among recorded GPUs. The 17th percentile ranking confirms this, meaning about 83% of GPUs in the database outperform it.

For the H20, the lack of benchmark data means no direct comparison is possible from the recorded measurements. The H20's percentile rank of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all GPUs, but this is not supported by any actual benchmark scores in the database. The RX 7400's scores, while low in percentile terms, are concrete and reproducible across multiple tests.

The PassMark G3D score of 11897 is the RX 7400's strongest result, but the DirectX 12 score of 44 is remarkably low, suggesting the card's driver or hardware does not handle modern API workloads efficiently. The DirectX 9 score of 176 is the highest of the DirectX tests, indicating better legacy performance. The GPU compute score of 5152 shows moderate compute capability, though far below what the H20's specifications suggest.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 7400 uses a 6 nm process; the H20 uses 5 nm. The RX 7400 has 13,300 million transistors; the H20 has 80,000 million. The die sizes are 204 mm² versus 814 mm². Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7400 and 98.3M per mm² for the H20.

Clock speeds: the RX 7400 has a base of 1452 MHz and a boost of 2300 MHz; the H20 has a base of 1830 MHz and a boost of 1980 MHz. The RX 7400 has a game clock of 2200 MHz; the H20 has none. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7400 and 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for the H20.

Memory capacity is 8 GB GDDR6 versus 96 GB HBM3. Bus widths are 128 bit versus 6144 bit. Bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s. Shading units are 1792 versus 9984. TMUs are 112 versus 312. ROPs are 64 versus 24. The RX 7400 has 28 ray tracing cores; the H20 has none listed. The H20 has 312 tensor cores; the RX 7400 has none.

Pixel rates are 147.2 GPixel/s for the RX 7400 versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20. Texture rates are 257.6 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 16.49 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 43 W versus 500 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus SXM module. The RX 7400 has a 1x 6-pin power connector; the H20 lists none. Suggested PSU is 200 W versus 900 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs. API support: the RX 7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the H20 lists all as N/A.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in pixel throughput. Its pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s is over three times the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher ROP count of 64 versus 24. For consumer gaming at lower resolutions where pixel fill is a bottleneck, the RX 7400 has a structural advantage. Its higher boost clock of 2300 MHz also aids latency-sensitive workloads.

The RX 7400 wins in consumer connectivity. It has display outputs including HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1, while the H20 has none. It uses a standard dual-slot form factor with a 6-pin power connector, making it installable in typical desktop systems. The H20's SXM module form factor requires specialized server platforms.

The RX 7400 wins in power efficiency from a consumer perspective. Its 43 W TDP allows operation with a 200 W suggested PSU, while the H20 demands a 900 W PSU. The RX 7400 also wins in legacy API support, with DirectX 9 through 12 and OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 all listed as functional.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 39.54 TFLOPS is 2.4 times the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS. FP16 performance of 79.07 TFLOPS is also 2.4 times higher. The H20's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s is 2.4 times the RX 7400's 257.6 GTexel/s.

The H20 wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 96 GB of HBM3 with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the RX 7400's 8 GB GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s. For large model inference or data-intensive server workloads, the H20's memory subsystem is the dominant factor. The 6144-bit bus provides a bandwidth advantage that no consumer card can match.

The H20 wins in tensor compute. Its 312 tensor cores support matrix operations that the RX 7400 cannot perform at all, since it has no tensor cores. The H20 also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, offering double the interface bandwidth of the RX 7400's PCIe 4.0 x8.

The H20's higher transistor count of 80,000 million and larger die of 814 mm² indicate a design aimed at sustained compute workloads. Its 9984 shading units provide massive parallel throughput. The H20 also has a higher base clock of 1830 MHz, suggesting better sustained performance under load.

In the recorded benchmark data, only the RX 7400 has scores. Its average of 2467 places it in the 17th percentile, near the AMD Radeon 8040S and NVIDIA GeForce 710M. The H20 has no recorded scores, so its theoretical advantages cannot be confirmed by direct measurements in the database. The percentile rank of 50 for the H20 is listed without supporting benchmark data.

The split is clear: the RX 7400 is a low-power consumer graphics card for display output and light gaming, while the H20 is a high-power server accelerator for compute and AI workloads. Their specification sheets confirm this, with the RX 7400 offering display outputs and the H20 offering none. The RX 7400's 43 W TDP versus the H20's 500 W TDP further separates their intended deployment environments.