AMD Radeon RX 9060 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The database shows two fundamentally different products with almost no overlap in intended use. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is a client-side graphics card with a full suite of DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, and it has recorded benchmark scores across ten different tests. The NVIDIA H20, by contrast, is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and an empty benchmark record in the database. The H20's 96 GB of HBM3 memory and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth position it for memory-bound server workloads, while the RX 9060's 8 GB GDDR6 and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth target conventional gaming and desktop graphics.

The RX 9060 wins every recorded benchmark category because it is the only one with benchmark entries. It scores 3322 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 88183 in Geekbench OpenCL, 39476 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 17631 in Passmark G3D. The H20 has no benchmark scores recorded, so the database cannot confirm any performance advantage for it in the tested categories. Its 50th percentile vs all GPUs, compared to the RX 9060's 59th percentile, suggests the H20 sits below the RX 9060 in the overall performance distribution, though this percentile is based on an empty benchmark set.

The use-case split is stark. The RX 9060 wins on any test that requires graphics API support, rasterization, or consumer-oriented compute. The H20 wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw FP16 throughput, where its 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) more than triples the RX 9060's 21.43 TFLOPS. The H20 also has 312 tensor cores that the RX 9060 lacks entirely, making it the only option for tensor-based workloads, even though no benchmark data confirms this advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational and directional. The RX 9060 uses RDNA 4.0 on a 4 nm TSMC process, built around the Navi 44 chip with 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die. The H20 uses Hopper on a 5 nm TSMC process, built around the GH100 chip with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The transistor density difference is notable: the RX 9060 packs 149.2M transistors per mm², while the H20 manages 98.3M per mm², reflecting the older node and the much larger, more complex die.

The H20's GH100 die is over four times larger than the Navi 44 die, and it carries nearly three times the transistor count. The RX 9060 compensates with a smaller, denser design that runs at higher clocks: its boost clock is 2990 MHz versus the H20's 1980 MHz, and its base clock is 1700 MHz versus 1830 MHz (the H20 actually has a higher base clock, though the boost gap is substantial). The RX 9060 also has a game clock of 2400 MHz, a figure the H20 does not list.

Memory architecture differs completely. The RX 9060 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s, which is 14 times the bandwidth. The H20's memory clock is 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective), while the RX 9060's memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The bus width difference dwarfs the clock difference, giving the H20 its massive bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 312 tensor cores, versus the RX 9060's 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 28 RT cores. The RX 9060 has 64 ROPs versus the H20's 24 ROPs, which explains why the RX 9060's pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s is four times the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. The H20 has no listed RT cores. The H20's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s exceeds the RX 9060's 334.9 GTexel/s, but the RX 9060's FP32 throughput of 21.43 TFLOPS is roughly half the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS.

The H20 is a 500 W SXM module with a 900 W suggested PSU, while the RX 9060 is a dual-slot card at 132 W with a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. The RX 9060 has one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a outputs; the H20 has no outputs. The RX 9060 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the H20 lists N/A for all three graphics APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the RX 9060 and H20. The only recorded scores belong to the RX 9060, so any comparison relies on the RX 9060's absolute numbers and the H20's absence from the benchmark table. The RX 9060's average benchmark score is 16014 across ten tests, while the H20's average is 0 with no tests recorded.

The RX 9060's nearest rivals in the database are all client GPUs. It sits 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (average score 16129), 1% above the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862), 1% above the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852), and 2.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679). These deltas place the RX 9060 in a tight pack around the 16,000 average score mark, with no rival more than 2.1% away in either direction.

The H20 has no nearest rivals listed, so the database provides no comparative anchor for its performance. Its 50th percentile vs all GPUs is a standalone datapoint with no supporting benchmark scores.

The biggest recorded win for the RX 9060 is in Passmark DirectX 9, where it scores 280, and in Passmark G2D, where it scores 1002. Its weakest recorded result is Passmark DirectX 12 at 44, which is odd given its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3322. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 39476 is roughly 45% of the OpenCL score of 88183, indicating stronger OpenCL compute performance than Vulkan graphics compute in that suite.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 have any graphics API support?

A: No. The H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and it has no display outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The H20 has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. The RX 9060 has 288.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the RX 9060's performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 9060 is 0.7% behind the RTX 3060 Ti, 1% ahead of the R9 370X, 1% ahead of the RX 7700, and 2.1% ahead of the Pro W5500 in average benchmark score.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The H20 has 9984 shading units versus the RX 9060's 1792. The H20 also has 312 TMUs and 312 tensor cores, while the RX 9060 has 112 TMUs and no tensor cores.

Q: Does the RX 9060 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 28 RT cores. The H20 has no RT cores listed.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 9060 has a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s, which is four times the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, due to the RX 9060's 64 ROPs versus the H20's 24 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The RX 9060 is the only choice for any workload that requires graphics output, DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. Its benchmark scores, while modest relative to its nearest rivals, confirm it operates in the same performance class as the RTX 3060 Ti, RX 7700, and similar client GPUs. Its 59th percentile vs all GPUs and average score of 16014 place it solidly in the mainstream desktop segment.

The H20 is the only choice for workloads that demand massive memory capacity (96 GB), extreme bandwidth (4.03 TB/s), or tensor core acceleration (312 cores). Its 500 W power draw and SXM module form factor target server racks, not desktop cases. The absence of any benchmark scores in the database means its actual performance in compute tasks is unverified, but its raw specifications suggest it is designed for FP16 and tensor workloads, not rasterization.

The RX 9060 delivers 21.43 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The H20's FP16 advantage is 3.7x, but that figure only matters in software that uses FP16 or tensor operations. For a gamer or desktop workstation user, the RX 9060 is the only functional option. For a server operator running memory-bound or tensor-heavy inference, the H20 is the only option with the required memory and compute resources.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 9060 | NVIDIA H20 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Hopper |

| Process node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | 80,000 million |

| Die size | 199 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor density | 149.2M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1700 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2990 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | HBM3 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 6144 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 4.03 TB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 9984 |

| TMUs | 112 | 312 |

| ROPs | 64 | 24 |

| RT cores | 28 | None |

| Tensor cores | None | 312 |

| FP32 | 21.43 TFLOPS | 39.54 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 21.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel rate | 191.4 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 334.9 GTexel/s | 617.8 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 132 W | 500 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None listed |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 900 W |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a | No outputs |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |