Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark comparisons between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 and the NVIDIA H20. Both accelerators sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. That parity in percentile ranking indicates neither part has an established performance footprint in the current dataset.

What the data does show is a set of theoretical peak figures that can be compared directly. In FP32 compute, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA H20 produces 39.54 TFLOPS. That puts Intel roughly 12.4% ahead in single-precision throughput. In FP16, the situation reverses sharply. The H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the Intel part maintains 44.44 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA accelerator is about 77.9% ahead in half-precision work.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the H20. The NVIDIA part uses HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus to reach 4.03 TB/s, whereas the Intel accelerator uses HBM2e across a wider 8192-bit bus for 2.46 TB/s. That is a 63.8% bandwidth advantage for the H20. The Intel part compensates with more raw memory channels on paper, but the newer memory standard wins outright.

Texture throughput also belongs to Intel. The Max 1350 posts 1,388.8 GTexel/s, compared to 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20. That is more than double the fill rate. Pixel rate is a different story: the Intel part lists 0 MPixel/s with zero ROPs, while the H20 manages 47.52 GPixel/s with 24 ROPs. The Intel accelerator is not designed for rasterization output, which explains the extreme gap.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The NVIDIA H20 runs at a base of 1830 MHz and boosts to 1980 MHz. The Intel part operates at 750 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost. The H20's boost clock is 27.7% higher than Intel's boost, and its base clock is more than double Intel's base. Despite the lower clocks, Intel achieves higher FP32 throughput due to its larger shader count.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS, which is ahead of the NVIDIA H20's 39.54 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 provides 4.03 TB/s via HBM3, while the Intel Max 1350 provides 2.46 TB/s via HBM2e. The H20 holds a significant lead in bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while the Intel Max 1350 reaches 44.44 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The H20 is substantially faster in FP16.

Q: How many shading units does each part have?

A: The Intel Max 1350 has 14,336 shading units, while the NVIDIA H20 has 9,984 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The Intel Max 1350 has 896 TMUs, compared to 312 TMUs on the NVIDIA H20.

Q: Do either of these accelerators support display outputs?

A: Neither part has display outputs. The Intel Max 1350 is an OAM module, and the NVIDIA H20 is an SXM module; both are designed for server deployment without video output.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in scenarios that rely on raw shader throughput and texture processing. Its 14,336 shading units and 896 TMUs drive the FP32 lead of 44.44 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. For workloads that stress single-precision math, such as certain scientific simulation kernels or graphics-style compute tasks, the Intel part shows a measurable theoretical advantage. Its texture rate of 1,388.8 GTexel/s is more than twice the H20's 617.8 GTexel/s, which matters for texture-bound operations.

The NVIDIA H20 wins where memory bandwidth and half-precision compute dominate. The 4.03 TB/s bandwidth is 63.8% higher than Intel's 2.46 TB/s, which benefits large data movement tasks, deep learning training with big batches, and inference workloads that are memory-bound. The FP16 figure of 79.07 TFLOPS is 77.9% higher than Intel's 44.44 TFLOPS, making the H20 the stronger choice for AI training and inference that use mixed-precision or half-precision formats. The H20 also has 312 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely in the recorded data.

The Intel Max 1350 includes 112 ray tracing cores, while the H20 lists no RT cores. For ray-traced rendering workloads, the Intel part has dedicated hardware support. The H20 counters with 24 ROPs and a 47.52 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the Intel part has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, so the NVIDIA card is the only one capable of any conventional pixel output.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every major specification field. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses a Ponte Vecchio chip built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The NVIDIA H20 uses a GH100 chip on the Hopper architecture with a 5 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel part has 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while the NVIDIA part has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. Transistor density favors NVIDIA at 98.3M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm² for Intel.

Clock speeds: the Intel part runs at 750 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) for Intel and 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory configuration: both have 96 GB capacity, but Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 14,336 shading units, 896 TMUs, zero ROPs, and 112 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and no RT cores listed. The Intel part has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part has 312 tensor cores.

Power draw: the Intel Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W, while the NVIDIA H20 has a TDP of 500 W. Suggested PSU is 850 W for Intel and 900 W for NVIDIA. The Intel part uses an OAM Module slot width, while the NVIDIA part uses an SXM Module. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces. Release dates differ: the Intel part launched on 2023-01-09, and the NVIDIA part launched on 2024-01-31. The Intel part's successor is listed as H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Ada and successor is Server Blackwell. API support also differs: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is built on the Generation 12.5 architecture, codenamed Ponte Vecchio. It uses a 10 nm Intel process and integrates 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The architecture is designed around a massive shader array of 14,336 shading units, which explains its FP32 advantage despite low clock speeds. The part includes 112 ray tracing cores, making it suitable for ray-traced workloads, but has no tensor cores listed. Its memory subsystem uses HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, the widest bus in the comparison, though the older memory type limits bandwidth to 2.46 TB/s.

The NVIDIA H20 is built on the Hopper architecture, using the GH100 chip fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. It contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a higher transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The H20 uses 312 tensor cores, which are fourth-generation tensor cores designed for AI and deep learning. Its FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio reflects the tensor core acceleration path. The memory subsystem uses HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, achieving 4.03 TB/s. The H20 has no ray tracing cores listed and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, marking it as a pure compute accelerator rather than a graphics-capable device.

The architectural divergence is clear: Intel pursues a wide shader-heavy design with RT support at lower clocks, while NVIDIA pursues a higher-clocked design with tensor core acceleration and faster memory. The Intel part's 112 RT cores versus the H20's none indicates different intended workloads, with Intel covering rendering and NVIDIA focused on HPC and AI. The process node difference (10 nm Intel versus 5 nm TSMC) is reflected in clock speed and density figures, with the NVIDIA part running at a 1980 MHz boost versus Intel's 1550 MHz boost. The Intel part's higher transistor count and larger die show a different scaling strategy, while the H20's smaller die with higher density shows TSMC's process advantage.

The absence of benchmark data in the database means these architectural differences are the primary basis for comparison. The Intel part's texture rate of 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA confirms the shader-heavy design direction. The pixel rate difference (0 MPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s) confirms that Intel's part skips traditional rasterization output entirely. The memory technology gap (HBM2e versus HBM3) is the clearest architectural disadvantage for Intel in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.