NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE vs NVIDIA H800 SXM5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE or the NVIDIA H800 SXM5. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The wins counter for each product is also zero, meaning there is no direct comparative performance data available from our measurements. This absence of scores means any numerical comparison must rely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database rather than on executed workloads.

What the data does show is a clear separation in compute capability. The RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the H800 SXM5 provides 59.30 TFLOPS in the same precision. That puts the GeForce part approximately 12.9% ahead in single-precision floating point, a meaningful margin for workloads that rely on FP32 arithmetic. In FP16, however, the relationship reverses dramatically. The H800 SXM5 reaches 237.2 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the RTX 5090 SE offers 66.94 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The H800 is therefore about 3.5 times faster in half-precision compute, assuming the 4:1 mode is used. This is the largest numerical gap between the two products in any recorded metric.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story in reverse. The H800 SXM5 has 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3 stack, whereas the RTX 5090 SE achieves 1.34 TB/s from GDDR7. The server part leads by roughly 2.5 times in raw memory throughput. The GeForce card counters with a higher pixel rate: 380.3 GPixel/s versus 42.12 GPixel/s, a factor of about 9 times. Texture rate also favors the RTX 5090 SE at 1,045.9 GTexel/s against 926.6 GTexel/s, a 12.9% advantage. These figures indicate that the two products are optimized for entirely different workloads, with the GeForce part emphasizing rasterization throughput and the server part emphasizing memory bandwidth and tensor-heavy FP16 work.

The Verdict

Given the absence of benchmark scores, the verdict must be drawn strictly from the recorded specifications. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE is the stronger choice for graphics-oriented tasks. It has 14080 shading units, 440 TMUs, and 160 ROPs, alongside 110 RT cores and 440 tensor cores. Its 66.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 380.3 GPixel/s pixel rate place it well ahead of the H800 SXM5 in traditional rendering metrics. The H800 SXM5, by contrast, has 16896 shading units and 528 tensor cores but only 24 ROPs, and its pixel rate of 42.12 GPixel/s is far lower. The H800 also has no display outputs and no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API entries, confirming it is not intended for graphics output.

For compute workloads that favor half-precision and massive memory capacity, the H800 SXM5 is clearly superior. Its 237.2 TFLOPS FP16 and 3.36 TB/s bandwidth, combined with 80 GB of HBM3 memory, make it the appropriate part for memory-bound and tensor-heavy server tasks. The RTX 5090 SE offers 24 GB of GDDR7, which is substantial for a consumer card but less than one third of the H800's capacity. The data indicates that the H800 SXM5 was released in 2023 and belongs to the Server Hopper generation, while the RTX 5090 SE is from the GeForce 50 series with a release date of 2025. The production status for both is Active. There is no launch MSRP recorded for the H800 SXM5; the RTX 5090 SE has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectures. The RTX 5090 SE uses Blackwell 2.0 on the GB202 chip, while the H800 SXM5 uses Hopper on the GH100 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, so the node is identical. Transistor counts differ: the GB202 packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a density of 122.9M transistors per mm². The GH100 has 80,000 million transistors on a larger 814 mm² die, giving a density of 98.3M per mm². The GeForce part therefore achieves higher transistor density on a smaller die.

The RTX 5090 SE includes 110 dedicated RT cores, which support hardware ray tracing. The H800 SXM5 has no RT core count recorded in the database. The tensor core counts are 440 for the RTX 5090 SE and 528 for the H800 SXM5. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different: GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus for the GeForce part, versus HBM3 on a 5120-bit bus for the server part. The H800's memory clock is recorded as 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, while the RTX 5090 SE runs memory at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective. Despite the higher per-pin speed of GDDR7, the HBM3's extremely wide bus delivers more than double the total bandwidth.

The API support also differs. The RTX 5090 SE supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H800 SXM5 has null entries for all three APIs, meaning it does not expose standard graphics APIs in the database. The RTX 5090 SE has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b), while the H800 SXM5 has no outputs. The GeForce card is a dual-slot design with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 900 W, while the H800 is an SXM module using an 8-pin EPS connector with a suggested PSU of 1100 W. The H800 also has no recorded dimensions, whereas the RTX 5090 SE measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products, based only on the recorded data:

• Chip: GB202 versus GH100
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 versus Hopper
• Generation: GeForce 50 versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Transistors: 92,200 million versus 80,000 million
• Die size: 750 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor density: 122.9M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm²
• Base clock: 1740 MHz versus 1095 MHz
• Boost clock: 2377 MHz versus 1755 MHz
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 24 GB versus 80 GB
• Memory type: GDDR7 versus HBM3
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 5120 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 1.34 TB/s versus 3.36 TB/s
• Shading units: 14080 versus 16896
• TMUs: 440 versus 528
• ROPs: 160 versus 24
• RT cores: 110 versus null
• Tensor cores: 440 versus 528
• Pixel rate: 380.3 GPixel/s versus 42.12 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 926.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 66.94 TFLOPS versus 59.30 TFLOPS
• FP16: 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 237.2 TFLOPS (4:1)
• TDP: 500 W versus 700 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus 8-pin EPS
• Suggested PSU: 900 W versus 1100 W
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b versus no outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus null
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus null
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus null
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm versus null
• Release date: 2025-12-31 versus 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: GeForce 40 versus Server Ada
• Successor: GeForce 60 versus Server Blackwell
• Launch MSRP: 1,499 USD versus null

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (NVIDIA), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), and production status (Active). The H800 SXM5 has no series name recorded, while the RTX 5090 SE belongs to the GeForce 50-series.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32, while the H800 SXM5 provides 59.30 TFLOPS. The GeForce part leads by approximately 12.9%.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 compute performance?

A: The H800 SXM5 reaches 237.2 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 4:1 ratio, while the RTX 5090 SE offers 66.94 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The H800 is about 3.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The H800 SXM5 has 80 GB of HBM3 memory, while the RTX 5090 SE has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory. The server part offers more than three times the capacity.

Q: Does the H800 SXM5 support display output?

A: No. The database records "No outputs" for the H800 SXM5. The RTX 5090 SE has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Q: Which GPU has more tensor cores?

A: The H800 SXM5 has 528 tensor cores, while the RTX 5090 SE has 440 tensor cores. The H800 leads by 88 tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The RTX 5090 SE has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W, using a 1x 16-pin connector. The H800 SXM5 has a TDP of 700 W with a suggested PSU of 1100 W, using an 8-pin EPS connector.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5090 SE wins in rasterization and graphics throughput. It has a pixel rate of 380.3 GPixel/s, which is roughly 9 times higher than the H800's 42.12 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 1,045.9 GTexel/s exceeds the H800's 926.6 GTexel/s by 12.9%. The GeForce card also has 160 ROPs versus only 24 on the H800, making it the clear choice for any workload that depends on pixel output and traditional rendering. Its base and boost clocks are substantially higher (1740 MHz and 2377 MHz versus 1095 MHz and 1755 MHz), which contributes to its advantage in latency-sensitive graphics tasks. The RTX 5090 SE also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H800 has no recorded API support. The presence of display outputs and a dual-slot form factor further confirms that the GeForce part is designed for client-side graphics.

The H800 SXM5 wins in memory-bound and tensor-heavy compute workloads. Its 3.36 TB/s bandwidth is about 2.5 times the RTX 5090 SE's 1.34 TB/s, and its 80 GB capacity dwarfs the 24 GB of the GeForce card. The H800's FP16 output of 237.2 TFLOPS is more than three times the RTX 5090 SE's 66.94 TFLOPS, making it the stronger option for half-precision training or inference tasks. It also has more shading units (16896 versus 14080), more TMUs (528 versus 440), and more tensor cores (528 versus 440). The H800's SXM module form factor and lack of display outputs indicate it is intended for server environments where density and compute throughput take priority over graphics output. Its 700 W TDP and 1100 W suggested PSU reflect the higher power envelope of a data-center accelerator.

For mixed workloads, the choice depends on precision requirements. If FP32 or rasterization matters, the RTX 5090 SE is ahead. If FP16 or memory capacity and bandwidth dominate, the H800 SXM5 is the recorded leader. Neither product has benchmark scores in the database, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification and architecture data available.