Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 are both enterprise accelerators with 96 GB of memory, but they target different workloads by architectural design. The Intel part, built on Ponte Vecchio with Generation 12.5 architecture, is the older release from January 2023, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 arrived in September 2025 as part of the Hopper generation. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the comparison rests on their listed specifications and architectural characteristics. The Intel Max 1350 delivers higher raw FP32 throughput at 44.44 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, making it the better choice for general compute tasks that rely on single-precision floating point. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 counters with FP16 performance of 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, more than 34 TFLOPS higher than the Intel card's 44.44 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, which gives it a clear edge for mixed-precision AI training and inference workloads. The Intel card also has a higher texture rate of 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, and more shading units at 14,336 versus 9,984, so it is better suited for graphics or compute tasks that use those resources. The NVIDIA part uses HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, while the Intel card uses HBM2e with 2.46 TB/s, so the NVIDIA accelerator is preferable for memory-bandwidth-bound operations. Organizations running AI inference or training should select the NVIDIA H20 NVL16, while those running FP32-heavy scientific or rendering workloads should select the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 1,280 mm² and 100,000 million transistors. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip from TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 814 mm² and 80,000 million transistors. The transistor density figures differ accordingly: Intel's part has 78.1M transistors per mm², while NVIDIA's part reaches 98.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, but the Intel chip has more total transistors by 20,000 million.

The Intel Max 1350 has 14,336 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and 112 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 9,984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and 312 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part lacks ray tracing cores entirely, while the Intel part has no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 also has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s, whereas the Intel card lists 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, indicating the Intel part does not perform raster output in the traditional sense. The NVIDIA part has a texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s, roughly 44% of the Intel part's 1,388.8 GTexel/s.

Both cards use PCIe 5.0 x16 interfaces and have no display outputs. The Intel part is an OAM Module, while the NVIDIA part is an SXM Module. The Intel card has a base clock of 750 MHz and a boost clock of 1,550 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1,830 MHz and a boost clock of 1,980 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at higher clocks but has fewer cores, while the Intel part runs at lower clocks with more cores. The Intel card has a TDP of 450 W with a suggested PSU of 850 W, while the NVIDIA card has a TDP of 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Intel Max 1350 uses 96 GB of HBM2e on an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 2.46 TB/s of bandwidth at 1,200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6,144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s at 1,313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part achieves 63.8% more memory bandwidth despite a narrower bus, due to faster HBM3 memory. Both parts have identical capacity at 96 GB, but the NVIDIA part moves data significantly faster.

The Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the NVIDIA card lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reinforcing that the NVIDIA part is not designed for graphics API workloads. The Intel part's production status is Active, and its successor is listed as H3C Graphics. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 wins in FP32 compute, with 44.44 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA part's 39.54 TFLOPS. This is a 12.4% advantage in single-precision throughput. The Intel part also has a substantial lead in texture processing, delivering 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, a 124.8% advantage. The Intel card has 43.7% more shading units (14,336 versus 9,984) and 896 TMUs versus 312 TMUs, a 187.2% advantage in texture units. For workloads that stress texture mapping or require high FP32 throughput, the Intel part is the stronger performer. The Intel part also has ray tracing cores (112) while the NVIDIA part has none, which could benefit ray tracing workloads if the software stack supports it.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins in FP16 compute with 79.07 TFLOPS versus the Intel part's 44.44 TFLOPS, a 77.9% advantage. This is the largest single performance gap between the two parts. The NVIDIA part achieves this via a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while the Intel part runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32. The NVIDIA part also has 4.03 TB/s of memory bandwidth versus 2.46 TB/s for the Intel part, a 63.8% advantage, which is critical for memory-bound AI workloads. The NVIDIA part has 312 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none listed, making the NVIDIA part the clear choice for tensor operations. The NVIDIA part also has a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s, whereas the Intel part lists 0 MPixel/s, so the NVIDIA part can perform rasterization output. The NVIDIA part has a higher boost clock at 1,980 MHz versus 1,550 MHz for the Intel part.

The NVIDIA part also operates at a lower TDP of 400 W versus 450 W for the Intel part, while delivering higher memory bandwidth and FP16 throughput. The NVIDIA part uses a smaller die (814 mm² versus 1,280 mm²) and fewer transistors (80,000 million versus 100,000 million), suggesting greater efficiency per transistor for its target workloads. The Intel part uses the older HBM2e memory standard, while the NVIDIA part uses HBM3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 delivers 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, which is 12.4% higher than the NVIDIA H20 NVL16's 39.54 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth using HBM3, compared to the Intel Max 1350's 2.46 TB/s using HBM2e. This gives the NVIDIA part a 63.8% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs support graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Max 1350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Both parts have no display outputs.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W with a suggested PSU of 850 W. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has a TDP of 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 312 tensor cores. The Intel Max 1350 has no tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: Both GPUs have exactly 96 GB of memory. The Intel part uses HBM2e on an 8,192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses HBM3 on a 6,144-bit bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators, so the comparison relies on the specification-level performance indicators. The most significant victory for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is in FP16 throughput, where it delivers 44.44 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, which is 34.63 TFLOPS higher, a 77.9% advantage. This is the largest gap between the two parts in any compute metric.

In FP32, the Intel part wins with 44.44 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a difference of 4.90 TFLOPS or 12.4%. The Intel part also wins decisively in texture rate, with 1,388.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s, a difference of 771.0 GTexel/s or 124.8%. The Intel part has 896 texture mapping units versus 312 for the NVIDIA part, a difference of 584 TMUs. The Intel part has 14,336 shading units versus 9,984 for the NVIDIA part, a difference of 4,352 shading units.

The NVIDIA part wins in memory bandwidth by 1.57 TB/s, delivering 4.03 TB/s versus 2.46 TB/s for the Intel part, a 63.8% advantage. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 1,980 MHz versus 1,550 MHz for the Intel part, a difference of 430 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has 0 MPixel/s, an infinite relative advantage for the NVIDIA part in this metric. The NVIDIA part has 312 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none listed.

The NVIDIA part achieves its FP16 lead through a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Intel part runs FP16 at 1:1 with FP32. This means the NVIDIA part doubles its FP32 throughput when operating in FP16, while the Intel part does not. For AI workloads that use FP16 or mixed precision, this architectural difference is decisive. The NVIDIA part also has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth to feed those tensor cores, while the Intel part has 2.46 TB/s to feed its shading units.

The Intel part counters with a larger transistor count at 100,000 million versus 80,000 million, and a larger die at 1,280 mm² versus 814 mm². The NVIDIA part has a higher transistor density at 98.3M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm² for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part is also newer by release date, launching in September 2025 versus January 2023 for the Intel part.

Both parts share the same 96 GB memory capacity and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. Both are active in production and have no display outputs. The Intel part is an OAM Module, while the NVIDIA part is an SXM Module. The Intel part has a higher TDP at 450 W versus 400 W for the NVIDIA part, but the NVIDIA part delivers more memory bandwidth and FP16 throughput per watt. The NVIDIA part has a lower suggested PSU requirement at 800 W versus 850 W for the Intel part.

The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all graphics APIs. This makes the Intel part the only option for graphics API workloads among the two, despite having no display outputs. The NVIDIA part has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s, indicating the NVIDIA part handles raster output while the Intel part does not.