NVIDIA H20 NVL16 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two NVIDIA accelerators. The H20 NVL16 occupies the server accelerator segment, while the RTX A400 is a compact workstation graphics card. The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, but the individual performance records and architectural specifications draw a clear functional boundary.

The RTX A400 carries a full suite of benchmark results. Its strongest recorded showing is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 22,844 points. The Vulkan test follows closely at 22,237 points. These compute-oriented tests demonstrate that the A400, despite its modest size, can execute general-purpose GPU workloads with measurable competence. In the Passmark suite, the DirectX 9 result of 87 stands as its highest per-test score, while DirectX 11 reaches 37, DirectX 10 reaches 32, and DirectX 12 reaches 27. The Passmark G2D score of 899 indicates capable 2D desktop acceleration, and the G3D score of 5,983 reflects its 3D rendering ability. The GPU compute score of 2,557 is the lowest of its compute metrics, suggesting that raw compute throughput is not its primary strength.

The H20 NVL16 has no benchmark records in the database. Its performance profile must be inferred from its specifications. The FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS place it in a completely different performance class. The H20 NVL16's memory subsystem, with 96 GB of HBM3 and 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth, positions it for large-scale data processing. Where the A400 wins is in its complete API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all present. The H20 NVL16 reports no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, meaning it has no graphics output capability at all.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 80,000 million transistors on a die size of 814 mm², yielding a transistor density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The H20 NVL16's compute configuration includes 9,984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. It also carries 312 tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The ratio of tensor cores to shading units differs notably: the H20 NVL16 has one tensor core per 32 shading units, while the A400 has one tensor core per 32 shading units as well, but the A400 adds ray tracing hardware that the H20 NVL16 lacks entirely.

Clock behavior differs as well. The H20 NVL16 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. The A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the H20 NVL16's power envelope is 400 W versus 50 W for the A400. The H20 NVL16 uses an SXM module slot width with no display outputs and no power connectors listed, while the A400 fits a single-slot form factor at 163 mm length and 69 mm height, draws power entirely from the PCIe slot, and provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Memory architectures diverge completely. The H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, producing 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s. The H20 NVL16's memory clock is 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective data rate; the A400's memory clock is 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H20 NVL16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A400.

The Verdict

The database indicates that these two products serve different markets entirely. The H20 NVL16 is a server accelerator with no graphics outputs, no consumer API support, and a 400 W power profile. The RTX A400 is a low-profile workstation card with full graphics APIs, four display outputs, and a 50 W power draw.

For compute density, the H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The H20 NVL16's texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s dwarfs the A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are 47.52 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s.

The H20 NVL16's percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 50, while the A400 sits at 35. The A400's average benchmark score is 6,078, with nearest rivals including the GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0% delta), the Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (-0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% delta). These close margins place the A400 firmly in entry-level performance territory.

The H20 NVL16's release date is 2025-09-01, and the A400's release date is 2024-04-15. Both are listed as Active in production status. The H20 NVL16's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. The A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. No launch MSRP is recorded for either product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The H20 NVL16 has 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth from 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the H20 NVL16 support graphics APIs?

A: No. The database records DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as "N/A" for the H20 NVL16. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The H20 NVL16 is rated at 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W. The RTX A400 is rated at 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, and it requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores. The H20 NVL16 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS. The H20 NVL16 is approximately 14.6 times faster in FP32 based on the recorded figures.

Q: What form factors do they use?

A: The H20 NVL16 is an SXM Module with no display outputs. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products, and the win counts are zero for both. This absence of comparative data reflects their fundamentally different market positions. However, the individual benchmark records for the RTX A400 and the specification data for both allow for a functional comparison.

In compute workloads, the H20 NVL16's FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS versus the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS indicates a 36.83 TFLOPS gap. For FP16, the H20 NVL16 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A400 achieves 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The H20 NVL16's tensor core count of 312 aligns with its FP16 advantage, though the A400's 24 tensor cores serve its workload class adequately.

The memory bandwidth differential is the largest recorded gap. At 4.03 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, the H20 NVL16 offers roughly 42 times the memory bandwidth. This directly supports its 96 GB capacity versus the A400's 4 GB. For large dataset processing, the H20 NVL16's specifications provide the necessary headroom.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The H20 NVL16's 617.8 GTexel/s compares to 42.29 GTexel/s for the A400, and 47.52 GPixel/s compares to 28.19 GPixel/s. The transistor budgets tell the story: 80,000 million on a 814 mm² die versus 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die. The H20 NVL16's 5 nm process enables 98.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the A400's 8 nm process achieves 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The A400's benchmark scores place it in a specific competitive band. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and Vulkan score of 22,237 show that it handles compute tasks adequately for its class. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and G2D score of 899 indicate that its 2D and 3D capabilities are balanced for a workstation card. The nearest rival data confirms this positioning: the GeForce MX230 scores 6,077, just one point below the A400's average of 6,078, and the Quadro P2000 scores 6,049, within 0.5% of the A400.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the H20 NVL16 and the RTX A400:

• Chip: GH100 versus GA107
• Architecture: Hopper versus Ampere
• Process node: 5 nm TSMC versus 8 nm Samsung
• Transistors: 80,000 million versus 8,700 million
• Die size: 814 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 98.3M / mm² versus 43.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 1830 MHz versus 1417 MHz
• Boost clock: 1980 MHz versus 1762 MHz
• Memory clock: 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 96 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory type: HBM3 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 6144 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 4.03 TB/s versus 96.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 9,984 versus 768
• TMUs: 312 versus 24
• ROPs: 24 versus 16
• Tensor cores: 312 versus 24
• Ray tracing cores: not listed versus 6
• Pixel rate: 47.52 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 617.8 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s
• FP32: 39.54 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS
• FP16: 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 400 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: SXM Module versus Single-slot
• Power connectors: not listed versus None
• Suggested PSU: 800 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• APIs: DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4
• Dimensions: not listed versus 163 mm length, 69 mm height
• Release date: 2025-09-01 versus 2024-04-15
• Predecessor: Server Ada versus Quadro Turing
• Successor: Server Blackwell versus Workstation Ada