NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two NVIDIA accelerators, one designed for the consumer graphics segment and the other for server-side compute. The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is clearly positioned for rendering and gaming, evidenced by its single recorded benchmark result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it achieves a score of 6269.5. This places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, a figure that reflects its standing among a broad field of consumer and professional parts.

The NVIDIA H20, in contrast, has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and the percentile field indicates it sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, which is a statistical placement rather than a result of measured performance. The data shows no wins for either part in head-to-head comparisons, as the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This absence of direct comparison data means the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification differences to infer where each accelerator would dominate.

The GeForce part wins in any scenario involving rasterization or graphics output. It carries full DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, along with display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The H20 has no display outputs and its API support is marked as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. For any workload that requires rendering to a screen, running a game, or using graphics APIs, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the only viable option between the two.

The H20 wins in the domain of memory capacity and bandwidth, which are critical for large-scale compute tasks. It offers 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce part offers 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s. For workloads that involve massive datasets that must reside in GPU memory, such as large language model inference or scientific simulations, the H20’s memory subsystem is decisively superior. The data also shows the H20 has more shading units (9984 versus 8448) and more tensor cores (312 versus 264), suggesting a higher theoretical ceiling for parallel compute throughput in FP16 and tensor operations.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators are built on different architectures from NVIDIA. The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the GeForce 40-series generation. It is built on the AD102 chip using a 5 nm process at TSMC. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation, built on the GH100 chip, also on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Both share the same process node and foundry, but the silicon designs diverge significantly.

The AD102 die measures 609 mm² and contains 76,300 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The GH100 die is larger at 814 mm² and contains 80,000 million transistors, but its density is lower at 98.3M per mm². The larger die area on the H20 is dedicated to a much wider memory interface and additional compute resources.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GeForce part has a base clock of 2340 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz. The H20 operates at a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost of 1980 MHz. The lower clocks on the H20 are offset by its higher transistor count and wider memory bus, but they do affect raw FP32 throughput. The GeForce part delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS, a notable difference given the H20 has more shading units. This indicates the H20’s shading units are clocked lower and may be optimized for a different instruction mix.

The H20 has no RT cores listed in the data, while the GeForce part has 66 RT cores. The H20 also has a significantly lower ROP count at 24 versus 96 on the GeForce part. The pixel rate reflects this: 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20 versus 250.6 GPixel/s for the GeForce part. The texture rates are closer, with 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20 and 689.0 GTexel/s for the GeForce part.

Memory technology is a critical architectural split. The GeForce part uses GDDR6X with 16 GB capacity, while the H20 uses HBM3 with 96 GB capacity. The H20’s memory clock is listed as 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, while the GeForce part also runs at 1313 MHz but delivers 21 Gbps effective due to the GDDR6X signaling. The bus widths are the differentiator: 256-bit for the GeForce part versus 6144-bit for the H20, yielding bandwidths of 672.3 GB/s and 4.03 TB/s respectively.

The H20’s FP16 performance is listed as 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, indicating a dedicated path for reduced precision. The GeForce part lists FP16 at 44.10 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not accelerate FP16 beyond its FP32 rate. This is a significant architectural difference for compute workloads that rely on mixed precision.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute throughput?

A: The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS. The GeForce part is ahead by roughly 4.5 TFLOPS in this metric.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The GeForce part uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s. The H20 offers six times the capacity and over five times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the H20 support graphics APIs?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A for the H20. It also has no display outputs. The GeForce part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes HDMI and DisplayPort outputs.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a TDP of 285 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W. The H20 consumes nearly double the power.

Q: Which part has more tensor cores?

A: The H20 has 312 tensor cores, while the GeForce part has 264 tensor cores. The H20 also lists FP16 at 79.07 TFLOPS, which is nearly double its FP32 rate, while the GeForce part’s FP16 matches its FP32 at 44.10 TFLOPS.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the H20?

A: The database contains no benchmark entries for the H20. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. The GeForce part has one recorded test result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 6269.5.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two accelerators in the recorded data:

• Architecture: Ada Lovelace for the GeForce part, Hopper for the H20.
• Generation: GeForce 40 for the GeForce part, Server Hopper (Hxx) for the H20.
• Chip: AD102 for the GeForce part, GH100 for the H20.
• Transistors: 76,300 million for the GeForce part, 80,000 million for the H20.
• Die Size: 609 mm² for the GeForce part, 814 mm² for the H20.
• Transistor Density: 125.3M / mm² for the GeForce part, 98.3M / mm² for the H20.
• Base Clock: 2340 MHz for the GeForce part, 1830 MHz for the H20.
• Boost Clock: 2610 MHz for the GeForce part, 1980 MHz for the H20.
• Memory Size: 16 GB for the GeForce part, 96 GB for the H20.
• Memory Type: GDDR6X for the GeForce part, HBM3 for the H20.
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit for the GeForce part, 6144 bit for the H20.
• Memory Bandwidth: 672.3 GB/s for the GeForce part, 4.03 TB/s for the H20.
• Memory Effective Speed: 21 Gbps for the GeForce part, 5.3 Gbps for the H20.
• Shading Units: 8448 for the GeForce part, 9984 for the H20.
• TMUs: 264 for the GeForce part, 312 for the H20.
• ROPs: 96 for the GeForce part, 24 for the H20.
• RT Cores: 66 for the GeForce part, null for the H20.
• Tensor Cores: 264 for the GeForce part, 312 for the H20.
• Pixel Rate: 250.6 GPixel/s for the GeForce part, 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20.
• Texture Rate: 689.0 GTexel/s for the GeForce part, 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20.
• FP32: 44.10 TFLOPS for the GeForce part, 39.54 TFLOPS for the H20.
• FP16: 44.10 TFLOPS for the GeForce part, 79.07 TFLOPS for the H20.
• TDP: 285 W for the GeForce part, 500 W for the H20.
• Slot Width: Triple-slot for the GeForce part, SXM Module for the H20.
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin for the GeForce part, null for the H20.
• Suggested PSU: 600 W for the GeForce part, 900 W for the H20.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the GeForce part, PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H20.
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the GeForce part, No outputs for the H20.
• APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 for the GeForce part, N/A for the H20.
• Dimensions: 310 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width for the GeForce part, null for the H20.
• Production Status: End-of-life for the GeForce part, Active for the H20.
• Release Date: 2024-06-09 for the GeForce part, 2024-01-31 for the H20.
• Predecessor: GeForce 30 for the GeForce part, Server Ada for the H20.
• Successor: GeForce 50 for the GeForce part, Server Blackwell for the H20.
• Launch MSRP: 799 USD for the GeForce part, null for the H20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two accelerators. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins count is zero for both parts. However, the recorded single benchmark for the GeForce part allows for a partial comparison.

The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scored 6269.5 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER with an average score of 6270 and a delta of 0%, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 with an average score of 6282 and a delta of -0.2%, the AMD FirePro W600 with an average score of 6223 and a delta of 0.8%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 with an average score of 6327 and a delta of -0.9%. This places the GeForce part effectively at parity with the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, within 0.2% of the Quadro K620, and less than 1% away from the other two rivals. The performance profile is tightly clustered around the 6270 average score mark.

The H20 has no benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its nearest rivals array is empty. This makes a numerical comparison impossible. The data shows the H20 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, a placeholder position that does not reflect measured performance.

The biggest numerical wins for the GeForce part are in clock speed, pixel rate, and FP32 throughput. Its boost clock of 2610 MHz is 630 MHz higher than the H20’s 1980 MHz. Its pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s is more than five times the H20’s 47.52 GPixel/s. Its FP32 of 44.10 TFLOPS exceeds the H20’s 39.54 TFLOPS by 4.56 TFLOPS.

The H20’s largest advantages are in memory capacity, bandwidth, tensor core count, and FP16 throughput. It offers 96 GB versus 16 GB, a 6x capacity advantage. Its 4.03 TB/s bandwidth is roughly 6x the GeForce part’s 672.3 GB/s. It has 312 tensor cores versus 264, an 18% advantage. Its FP16 of 79.07 TFLOPS is 79% higher than the GeForce part’s 44.10 TFLOPS. The H20 also has more shading units (9984 versus 8448) and more TMUs (312 versus 264), though its lower clocks reduce the impact of those counts in FP32 work. The H20’s texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s trails the GeForce part’s 689.0 GTexel/s despite having more TMUs, again a clock speed effect.