NVIDIA H100 SXM5 96 GB vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two accelerators. Both the NVIDIA H100 SXM5 96 GB and the NVIDIA H20 return zero benchmark entries, zero average benchmark scores, and zero head-to-head comparison points. Consequently, the wins column for each product is empty.

The absence of measured performance data means that any direct comparison of application-level throughput, rendering capability, or compute workload performance cannot be derived from the database. What can be compared are the architectural specifications, clock behavior, memory characteristics, and the derived theoretical throughput figures that are recorded for each accelerator.

The pure compute throughput numbers do differ substantially. The H100 SXM5 96 GB delivers 66.91 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS. That is a 69.2% higher FP32 figure for the H100, a very large arithmetic gap. In FP16, the difference is even more pronounced on paper: the H100 records 267.6 TFLOPS under a 4:1 ratio, while the H20 records 79.07 TFLOPS under a 2:1 ratio. The H100's FP16 figure is more than triple that of the H20.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The H100 achieves 1,045.4 GTexel/s, while the H20 reaches 617.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rate, however, is identical at 47.52 GPixel/s for both, since both carry the same 24 ROPs and the same boost clock.

Clock behavior is partially shared and partially divergent. Both accelerators boost to 1980 MHz. The H100 has a base clock of 1350 MHz, while the H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz. This means the H20 operates at a higher idle-to-load floor, reducing the clock ramp distance, but the peak boost is the same.

Memory bandwidth favors the H20. The H20 uses a 6144 bit bus width, compared to 5120 bit on the H100. The memory clock is identical at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective. The wider bus gives the H20 a bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s versus 3.36 TB/s on the H100, a 20% advantage for the H20.

The database shows no benchmark wins for either product. The percentile ranking for both is 50, placing each in the middle of all GPUs in the database, but this percentile is based on the zero-score entries rather than any measured workload. The verdict on measured performance is therefore neutral: the database has no evidence of one outperforming the other in any application benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 96 GB records 66.91 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA H20 records 39.54 TFLOPS. The H100 is 69.2% higher in this metric.

Q: Which accelerator provides more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA H20 provides 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth using a 6144 bit HBM3 interface. The NVIDIA H100 SXM5 96 GB provides 3.36 TB/s using a 5120 bit HBM3 interface. The H20 leads by 20%.

Q: Do both accelerators use the same chip?

A: Yes. Both use the GH100 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with 80,000 million transistors and a die size of 814 mm².

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The H100 SXM5 96 GB has a TDP of 700 W and a suggested PSU of 1100 W. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Are the boost clocks the same?

A: Yes. Both accelerators boost to 1980 MHz. The base clocks differ: the H100 runs at 1350 MHz, and the H20 runs at 1830 MHz.

Q: Do either of these accelerators have display outputs?

A: No. Both are SXM modules with no display outputs. The H20 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan APIs as N/A, while the H100 lists no API values.

Where Each One Wins

The H100 SXM5 96 GB wins on raw compute density. It has 16,896 shading units versus 9,984 on the H20, 528 TMUs versus 312, and 528 tensor cores versus 312. The FP32 throughput advantage of 66.91 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS indicates that workloads dominated by general-purpose floating-point math, such as scientific simulation or large matrix operations in single precision, are better served by the H100.

The H100 also wins on FP16 throughput. Its 267.6 TFLOPS under a 4:1 ratio is more than three times the H20's 79.07 TFLOPS under a 2:1 ratio. This suggests that mixed-precision training or inference workloads that rely heavily on FP16 accumulation would see a substantial theoretical ceiling on the H100.

Texture processing is another H100 win. The texture rate of 1,045.4 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s reflects the higher TMU count and the higher shading unit count. Tasks that stress texture fetch and filtering, such as certain rendering or image-processing pipelines, would favor the H100 on paper.

The H20 wins on memory bandwidth. The 4.03 TB/s figure versus 3.36 TB/s is a clear advantage. Workloads that are memory-bound, such as large data transfers, certain database operations, or inference over very large models where weight reads dominate compute, would benefit from the H20's wider bus.

The H20 also wins on power efficiency in the sense of lower absolute consumption. Its 500 W TDP versus 700 W means the H20 draws less power under load, and its suggested PSU of 900 W versus 1100 W reflects a lower system-level power envelope. The H20 also has a higher base clock of 1830 MHz versus 1350 MHz, indicating it spends less time ramping from a low idle state.

Pixel rate is a tie at 47.52 GPixel/s, and both use the same 24 ROPs. Neither accelerator is designed for graphics output, so this metric is largely irrelevant for server deployment.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ in several recorded specifications. The shading unit count differs: the H100 has 16,896, the H20 has 9,984. TMU count differs: 528 versus 312. Tensor core count differs: 528 versus 312. ROP count is identical at 24.

The memory bus width differs: 5120 bit on the H100 versus 6144 bit on the H20. Memory bandwidth differs accordingly: 3.36 TB/s versus 4.03 TB/s. Memory size is identical at 96 GB, and both use HBM3.

Clocks differ in base frequency only: 1350 MHz on the H100 versus 1830 MHz on the H20. Boost clock is identical at 1980 MHz, and memory clock is identical at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective.

Compute throughput figures differ: FP32 is 66.91 TFLOPS on the H100 versus 39.54 TFLOPS on the H20. FP16 is 267.6 TFLOPS at a 4:1 ratio on the H100 versus 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio on the H20. Texture rate is 1,045.4 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is identical at 47.52 GPixel/s.

Power specifications differ: TDP is 700 W on the H100 versus 500 W on the H20. Suggested PSU is 1100 W versus 900 W. The H100 lists an 8-pin EPS power connector, while the H20 lists no power connector.

The H20 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, while the H100 lists no API values. Both are SXM modules with PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces and no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

Both accelerators share the same underlying architecture. They use the GH100 chip, the Hopper architecture, and belong to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. Both are built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 80,000 million transistors and a die size of 814 mm². The transistor density is identical at 98.3M per mm².

The difference is in how the chip is configured. The H100 enables a larger portion of the silicon: 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 528 tensor cores. The H20 enables a smaller portion: 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 312 tensor cores. This is a binning or configuration difference on the same physical die.

The memory subsystem is also configured differently. The H20 uses a wider 6144 bit bus versus 5120 bit on the H100, giving the H20 higher bandwidth. Both use HBM3, and both have 96 GB capacity.

The H20 has a higher base clock, 1830 MHz versus 1350 MHz, which partially compensates for the reduced compute resources. The boost clock is identical at 1980 MHz.

The FP16 ratio differs: the H100 records FP16 at a 4:1 ratio, while the H20 records it at a 2:1 ratio. This indicates different tensor core throughput configurations relative to FP32.

The release dates differ: the H100 was released on 2023-03-20, and the H20 was released on 2024-01-31. Both are active production parts, both have the predecessor "Server Ada" and successor "Server Blackwell," and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The database shows two accelerators with identical chips, identical memory capacity, identical boost clocks, and identical pixel rates, but very different compute configurations. The H100 SXM5 96 GB is the higher-throughput part across FP32, FP16, and texture rate. The H20 is the higher-bandwidth part with a wider memory bus and lower power draw.

For workloads that depend on raw floating-point throughput, the H100 is the clear choice from the recorded data. Its 66.91 TFLOPS FP32 and 267.6 TFLOPS FP16 figures dwarf the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS and 79.07 TFLOPS. The H100's 528 tensor cores versus 312 on the H20 further supports this direction.

For workloads that are memory-bound, the H20 has the advantage. Its 4.03 TB/s bandwidth versus 3.36 TB/s means it can feed data to compute units faster. The H20's lower TDP of 500 W versus 700 W also makes it the lower-power option, with a suggested PSU of 900 W versus 1100 W.

The H20's higher base clock of 1830 MHz versus 1350 MHz suggests it maintains a higher operating frequency at lower utilization levels, which could reduce latency in bursty workloads that do not sustain peak compute.

Neither part has any benchmark scores in the database, so there is no measured evidence for application-specific performance. The verdict must rest entirely on the recorded specifications. The H100 wins on compute throughput and texture rate. The H20 wins on memory bandwidth, base clock, and power consumption. The choice between them depends on whether the target workload is compute-bound or memory-bound, with the H100 serving compute-heavy tasks and the H20 serving memory-heavy tasks within a lower power envelope.