Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 versus the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. Consequently, there are no measured performance scores, no comparative deltas, and no wins recorded for either accelerator in direct competition. Both parts hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, and both carry an average benchmark score of zero, indicating that neither has accumulated any submitted benchmark results. The absence of data means no statement can be made about which part is faster in any workload, whether compute-bound, memory-bound, or mixed.

What can be established from the available figures are the theoretical peak capabilities and the memory architecture characteristics, which differ substantially. The Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS for FP32 operations and 22.22 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA part delivers 39.54 TFLOPS for FP32 and 79.07 TFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput. Those figures indicate that in raw FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA part is approximately 78% higher. In FP16 throughput, the NVIDIA part is approximately 256% higher. However, these are theoretical peak numbers from the specification sheets, not measured benchmark results, and they do not account for real-world efficiency, thermal behavior, or software utilization.

Memory bandwidth also differs sharply. The Intel part has 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, yielding 1.23 TB/s. The NVIDIA part has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, yielding 4.03 TB/s. The NVIDIA part therefore provides roughly 3.3 times the memory bandwidth and double the memory capacity. The bus width is narrower on the NVIDIA part, but the faster HBM3 memory technology more than compensates. Texture rate favors the Intel part: 694.4 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, a margin of about 12.4%. Pixel rate heavily favors the NVIDIA part: 47.52 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s, because the Intel part has zero ROPs, meaning it cannot perform traditional rasterized pixel output.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel part runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock by 830 MHz and a higher boost clock by 430 MHz. Shader unit counts differ as well: the Intel part has 7168 shading units and 448 TMUs, while the NVIDIA part has 9984 shading units and 312 TMUs. The NVIDIA part has more shading units by 2816, but the Intel part has more TMUs by 136. Tensor core counts show the NVIDIA part with 312 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none. Ray tracing cores appear only on the Intel part, with 56 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part lists none.

The Verdict

Based solely on the data in the database, neither accelerator can be declared a winner in benchmark performance because no benchmark scores exist for either part. The specification sheets, however, point to different intended roles. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 shows higher FP32 throughput, dramatically higher FP16 throughput, more than triple the memory bandwidth, double the memory capacity, and a more advanced 5 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 shows a higher texture rate, a wider memory bus, and a higher transistor count, but it also has zero pixel output capability and a lower memory bandwidth.

The data indicates that the NVIDIA part is positioned for workloads that exploit FP16 and large memory footprints, given its 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 rate and 96 GB HBM3 capacity. The Intel part, with its 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 rate and 48 GB HBM2e capacity, appears oriented toward compute tasks that do not require dense FP16 throughput or very large memory pools. The absence of ROPs on the Intel part and the presence of 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA part suggests that the NVIDIA part can handle some rasterization output, while the Intel part cannot produce any pixel output at all.

For users selecting between these two parts, the recorded data supports the NVIDIA part for FP16-heavy workloads, memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, and tasks needing more than 48 GB of memory. The Intel part is the only choice where a higher texture rate matters, where the 12.4% advantage in GTexel/s could be relevant, and where a wider 8192-bit memory bus is desired. Neither part has display outputs, so both are strictly compute accelerators. The Intel part uses a dual-slot form factor with a 12-pin power connector, while the NVIDIA part uses an SXM module with no listed power connector, which implies a different physical integration path. The Intel part has a 300 W TDP and a suggested 700 W PSU, while the NVIDIA part has a 400 W TDP and a suggested 800 W PSU. Those numbers indicate that the NVIDIA part requires more power delivery and cooling infrastructure.

The release dates differ by more than two years: the Intel part entered production on January 9, 2023, while the NVIDIA part is dated September 1, 2025. The Intel part lists a successor named H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part lists Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor. Those lineage entries place the NVIDIA part in a newer generation of server accelerators, consistent with its higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, which is 17.32 TFLOPS higher than the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 at 22.22 TFLOPS, a 78% advantage.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare on memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 provides 4.03 TB/s over a 6144-bit HBM3 bus. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 provides 1.23 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM2e bus. The NVIDIA part delivers 3.3 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support display outputs?

A: No. Both the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 list "No outputs" for display outputs, making both suitable only for compute or server workloads.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part is 3.56 times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 9984 shading units, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 7168 shading units, a difference of 2816 units in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Are there any direct benchmark results comparing these two GPUs?

A: No. The database records zero head-to-head benchmark entries, zero wins for either part, and zero average benchmark scores for both accelerators. Only specification data is available.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts differ: Intel lists 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while NVIDIA lists 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the NVIDIA part at 98.3M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm² on the Intel part. Clock speeds differ: Intel runs at 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. Memory clock also differs: Intel lists 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective, while NVIDIA lists 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration diverges: Intel has 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s, while NVIDIA has 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s. Shader units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ: Intel has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing cores exist only on Intel at 56, while tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA at 312. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on Intel versus 47.52 GPixel/s on NVIDIA. Texture rate is 694.4 GTexel/s on Intel versus 617.8 GTexel/s on NVIDIA. FP32 throughput is 22.22 TFLOPS on Intel versus 39.54 TFLOPS on NVIDIA. FP16 throughput is 22.22 TFLOPS at 1:1 on Intel versus 79.07 TFLOPS at 2:1 on NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications differ. Intel has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 12-pin power connector, and a suggested 700 W PSU. NVIDIA has a 400 W TDP, an SXM module form factor, no listed power connector, and a suggested 800 W PSU. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Intel has dimensions of 267 mm length (10.5 inches), while NVIDIA lists no dimensions. Both have no display outputs. API support differs: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan, while NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Release dates differ: Intel on January 9, 2023, NVIDIA on September 1, 2025. Intel lists H3C Graphics as its successor, while NVIDIA lists Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip based on Generation 12.5 architecture, categorized under "Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio)". The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip based on Hopper architecture, categorized under "Server Hopper (Hxx)". These are fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel's architecture includes 56 ray tracing cores, which are absent from the NVIDIA part's listed specifications. NVIDIA's architecture includes 312 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel part's listed specifications. The presence of tensor cores on NVIDIA but not on Intel indicates a design focus on matrix operations and deep learning acceleration. The presence of ray tracing cores on Intel but not on NVIDIA indicates a design that retains some graphics-oriented acceleration, despite having no display outputs.

The process node difference is significant: Intel uses a 10 nm process with a foundry of Intel, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process with a foundry of TSMC. The smaller process node on the NVIDIA part contributes to its higher transistor density, 98.3M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm², even though the Intel die is larger at 1280 mm² versus 814 mm². The Intel part has 20,000 million more transistors overall, but the NVIDIA part packs them more densely. The Intel part's 8192-bit memory bus is the widest among the two, but the NVIDIA part's HBM3 memory operates at a higher effective speed, resulting in the NVIDIA part having 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth versus 1.23 TB/s.

The FP16 ratio differs: Intel lists 22.22 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning FP16 and FP32 throughput are identical, while NVIDIA lists 79.07 TFLOPS at 2:1, meaning FP16 throughput is double FP32. This reflects a fundamental architectural choice. NVIDIA's Hopper architecture is optimized for reduced-precision compute, doubling throughput when moving from FP32 to FP16. Intel's Ponte Vecchio architecture does not gain throughput at FP16, keeping the same rate as FP32. The shading unit counts also reflect different approaches: NVIDIA has 9984 shading units versus Intel's 7168, a 39% higher count. Intel compensates with more TMUs, 448 versus 312, and a higher texture rate, 694.4 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part has 24 ROPs, allowing 47.52 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has zero ROPs and zero pixel rate. The API support differences further separate the two: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating that the NVIDIA part is not designed for graphics API workloads at all, while the Intel part retains some legacy graphics API compatibility.