AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Steam Machine GPU and the NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture (codename Hotpink Bonefish), built on a 6 nm process. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB uses the GH100 chip based on Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB has 64 GB of HBM3 memory on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 2.02 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The AMD chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 98.3M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB delivers 66.91 TFLOPS FP32, which is significantly higher than the AMD Steam Machine GPU's 17.56 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a TDP of 110 W and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB has a TDP of 700 W, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 1100 W.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB provides no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Steam Machine GPU and NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part is a console-oriented GPU built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, while the NVIDIA part is a server accelerator built on the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip.

The process technology differs: AMD uses a 6 nm node while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node, both from TSMC. This contributes to the transistor density gap, with NVIDIA achieving 98.3M transistors per mm² compared to AMD's 65.2M per mm². The raw transistor counts differ substantially, 13,300 million versus 80,000 million.

The AMD GPU includes 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GPU includes 16896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has no dedicated ray tracing cores listed, while the AMD part has no tensor cores listed.

The memory architectures are entirely different. AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. NVIDIA uses 64 GB of HBM3 on a 3072-bit bus. This gives NVIDIA a bandwidth advantage of 2.02 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s for AMD.

The feature sets diverge as well. AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists no API support data for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan in the database.

The form factors reflect their intended environments. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is a compact card measuring 156 mm in length, 152 mm in height, and 162 mm in width. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB is an SXM module with no listed dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark scores for these two GPUs. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and both products have an average benchmark score of 0. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, placing them at the median of the database distribution.

Without recorded benchmark data, the comparison relies entirely on architectural specifications and measured capabilities. The FP32 compute figures provide one clear comparison point: NVIDIA delivers 66.91 TFLOPS, which is 3.8 times the 17.56 TFLOPS of the AMD part.

The FP16 comparison shows an even larger gap. NVIDIA delivers 267.6 TFLOPS FP16 with a 4:1 ratio relative to FP32. AMD delivers 17.56 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. This indicates the NVIDIA accelerator is designed for mixed-precision workloads where FP16 throughput matters substantially.

The pixel rate comparison shows AMD at 156.8 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA at 47.52 GPixel/s. AMD holds a 3.3x advantage in pixel throughput. The texture rate comparison shows NVIDIA at 1,045.4 GTexel/s versus AMD at 274.4 GTexel/s, giving NVIDIA a 3.8x advantage.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive factor. NVIDIA's 2.02 TB/s is 7 times the 288.0 GB/s of the AMD part. This bandwidth disparity directly impacts workloads that are memory-bound.

Clock speeds differ in direction. AMD has a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2450 MHz. NVIDIA has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. AMD runs at higher clock frequencies, but NVIDIA compensates with far more compute units.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD Steam Machine GPU | NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Hopper |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1720 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | 1980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 64 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 3072 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 2.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 16896 |

| TMUs | 112 | 528 |

| ROPs | 64 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 28 | None listed |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 528 |

| Pixel Rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 274.4 GTexel/s | 1,045.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.56 TFLOPS | 66.91 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1) | 267.6 TFLOPS (4:1) |

| TDP | 110 W | 700 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 1100 W |

| Bus Interface | None listed | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 1x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | None listed |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | None listed |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None listed |

| Release Date | 2026-06-28 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | None | Server Ada |

| Successor | None | Server Blackwell |

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two GPUs aimed at entirely different workloads with no overlapping benchmark results. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is positioned for console gaming use by Valve, with display outputs, graphics API support, and a compact physical footprint. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB is positioned for server deployment, with no display outputs, no listed graphics API support, and an SXM module form factor.

The compute specifications indicate the NVIDIA part is orders of magnitude more capable for FP32 and FP16 workloads. The 66.91 TFLOPS FP32 and 267.6 TFLOPS FP16 figures place it in a different performance class than the AMD part's 17.56 TFLOPS for both precision levels.

The memory capacity and bandwidth differences are stark. The 64 GB HBM3 configuration with 2.02 TB/s bandwidth serves large data sets and memory-intensive server workloads. The 8 GB GDDR6 configuration with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth suits gaming scenarios where memory requirements are more modest.

The power envelope tells a complementary story. The AMD part draws 110 W with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA part draws 700 W with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested PSU of 1100 W. These numbers reflect the intended deployment environments: low-power consumer systems versus high-power data center racks.

The release dates in the database place the AMD part at 2026-06-28 and the NVIDIA part at 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Server Ada) and successor (Server Blackwell) listed, while the AMD part has neither.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Steam Machine GPU wins in scenarios that require display output. It provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1, making it suitable for direct connection to monitors. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB provides no display outputs and cannot drive a display.

The AMD part wins on pixel throughput. Its 156.8 GPixel/s rate is 3.3 times the 47.52 GPixel/s of the NVIDIA part. This suggests an advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads where pixel fill rate matters.

The AMD part wins on power efficiency. At 110 W, it draws substantially less power than the 700 W NVIDIA part. The AMD part also requires no power connectors, simplifying installation in systems without high-power PCIe cabling.

The NVIDIA part wins on raw compute throughput. Its 66.91 TFLOPS FP32 is 3.8 times the AMD part. Its 267.6 TFLOPS FP16 is 15.2 times the AMD part's FP16 figure.

The NVIDIA part wins on texture throughput. Its 1,045.4 GTexel/s rate is 3.8 times the 274.4 GTexel/s of the AMD part.

The NVIDIA part wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 64 GB HBM3 configuration with 2.02 TB/s bandwidth provides 8 times the capacity and 7 times the bandwidth of the AMD part.

The NVIDIA part wins on transistor density and raw transistor count. Its 80,000 million transistors on 814 mm² represents a 6x advantage in transistor count and a 1.5x advantage in density.

The AMD part wins on clock speed. Its boost clock of 2450 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA boost clock of 1980 MHz by 23.7%. Its base clock of 1720 MHz also exceeds the NVIDIA base clock of 1665 MHz.

The NVIDIA part wins on API support for server workloads. The database lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support for the NVIDIA part, suggesting it operates outside standard graphics APIs. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD part wins on physical size. Its dimensions of 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm make it a compact card suitable for small form factor systems. The NVIDIA SXM module has no listed dimensions but is designed for server chassis mounting.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either GPU, so performance claims must be inferred from specifications. The recorded data indicates the AMD Steam Machine GPU serves display-oriented, low-power gaming applications, while the NVIDIA H100 SXM5 64 GB serves high-throughput, memory-intensive server applications.