AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full benchmark record for the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT, while the NVIDIA H20 has no recorded benchmark entries. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible, but the available data still allows for a meaningful analysis based on the AMD card's measured results and the NVIDIA H20's architectural specifications.

The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT delivers an average benchmark score of 11,627 across all recorded tests. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 51, placing it just above the midpoint of the database. The nearest rivals for the RX 7800 XT include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 with an average score of 11,680 (a delta of -0.5%), the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M at 11,528 (+0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20c at 11,479 (+1.3%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (-1.8%). These deltas show that the RX 7800 XT sits in a tightly clustered performance band, with all four rivals within roughly 2% of its average score.

In specific benchmark tests, the RX 7800 XT shows a wide spread of results. Its highest recorded score comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test at 54,228, which indicates strong compute and graphics performance in that API. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields a score of 4,157, while Geekbench OpenCL records 18,290. Passmark tests show 24,176 in G3D, 13,473 in GPU compute, 1,177 in G2D, 304 in DirectX 9, 249 in DirectX 11, 121 in DirectX 10, and 93 in DirectX 12. The low DirectX 12 score of 93 is notable, as it contrasts sharply with the much higher DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 scores, suggesting that the card's performance varies significantly depending on the API and workload type.

The NVIDIA H20, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and an empty benchmark array in the database. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is effectively a placeholder given the lack of measured results. The H20 also has no nearest rivals listed, meaning there is no comparative data to anchor its performance relative to other GPUs. The recorded data indicates that the H20 has not undergone the same suite of consumer-oriented benchmark tests as the RX 7800 XT, which is consistent with its positioning as a server-class accelerator rather than a client graphics card.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT wins in every measurable benchmark category because it is the only one of the two with benchmark results. Its strengths are clear in the Passmark G3D test with a score of 24,176, which reflects substantial 3D rendering capability. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 54,228 is the single highest figure for either card, indicating strong cross-platform compute and graphics execution. The RX 7800 XT also delivers a solid Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,290, which points to capable general-purpose GPU compute.

The NVIDIA H20 wins in categories derived purely from its specification sheet, not from benchmark measurements. It has a higher FP32 throughput at 39.54 TFLOPS compared to the RX 7800 XT's 37.32 TFLOPS, a 5.9% advantage in raw single-precision floating-point performance. The H20's FP16 performance is 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, far exceeding the RX 7800 XT's 37.32 TFLOPS at 1:1, which makes it markedly stronger for half-precision workloads. The H20 also has a memory bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s versus 624.1 GB/s for the RX 7800 XT, a 6.5x difference that gives it a decisive edge in memory-bound tasks.

The H20's 96 GB of HBM3 memory dwarfs the RX 7800 XT's 16 GB of GDDR6, and its 6144-bit bus width is 24 times wider than the RX 7800 XT's 256-bit interface. These figures indicate that the H20 is designed for large-scale data processing, while the RX 7800 XT is oriented toward real-time rendering and gaming. The RX 7800 XT has a pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20, meaning the AMD card is roughly 4.9x faster at filling pixels, a critical metric for rasterized graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi III generation within the RX 7000 series. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 28,100 million transistors on a die size of 346 mm², yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip built on Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation, also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC but with 80,000 million transistors on a much larger die of 814 mm², giving a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm².

The RX 7800 XT has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores, which means it does not have specialized hardware for matrix operations common in deep learning. The H20, by contrast, has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores, but no ray tracing cores. The H20's tensor core count is a defining feature, as these units accelerate AI inference and training workloads. The ROP count is dramatically different: the RX 7800 XT has 96 ROPs while the H20 has only 24, which explains the RX 7800 XT's much higher pixel fill rate.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The RX 7800 XT runs at a base clock of 1295 MHz, a boost clock of 2430 MHz, and a game clock of 2124 MHz, with memory clocked at 2438 MHz for 19.5 Gbps effective. The H20 runs at a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz, with memory at 1313 MHz for 5.3 Gbps effective. The H20's higher base clock but lower boost clock relative to the RX 7800 XT suggests a design optimized for sustained server workloads rather than short bursts of peak performance.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The H20's memory capacity is six times larger and its bandwidth is nearly seven times higher, making it suitable for models and datasets that would not fit in the RX 7800 XT's memory. The RX 7800 XT's memory type and bus width are typical for a consumer graphics card, while the H20's HBM3 and ultra-wide bus are characteristic of enterprise accelerators.

The power and interface specifications also diverge. The RX 7800 XT has a TDP of 263 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and is a dual-slot card. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W, uses an SXM module form factor, and has no power connector listed because it is designed for server integration. The RX 7800 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The RX 7800 XT has display outputs including 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the H20 has no display outputs at all, confirming its role as a compute-only device.

The API support reflects their different markets. The RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, meaning it does not expose these graphics APIs and is not intended for consumer gaming or general graphics workloads. The RX 7800 XT measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 50 mm in width, while the H20 has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its SXM module form factor that mounts directly into server chassis.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7800 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,627. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660, scores 11,680 for a delta of -0.5%, meaning the RX 7800 XT is slightly behind. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 11,528 (+0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 (+1.3%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11,842 (-1.8%). All four rivals are within a 2% band around the RX 7800 XT's average.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No. The database shows an empty benchmark array for the H20, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. It also has no nearest rivals listed, so no direct performance comparisons can be drawn from measured data.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA H20 has higher FP32 throughput at 39.54 TFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT's 37.32 TFLOPS. The H20 also has FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 7800 XT has FP16 of 37.32 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 624.1 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The H20 has six times more memory capacity and approximately 6.5 times more bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7800 XT uses the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the H20 uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture. The H20 has 80,000 million transistors on a 814 mm² die, versus 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die for the RX 7800 XT.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 support display outputs?

A: No. The H20 lists "No outputs" for its display outputs, while the RX 7800 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The H20 also lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, whereas the RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The recorded data tells a clear story of two GPUs built for different purposes. The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is a consumer graphics card with measurable benchmark results, a 51st percentile ranking, and a full suite of display outputs and graphics API support. Its average benchmark score of 11,627 places it in a tight cluster with rival cards like the GTX 1660 and RX 6500 XT, all within roughly 2% of each other. The RX 7800 XT's pixel rate of 233.3 GPixel/s and 96 ROPs make it well suited for rasterized rendering, and its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is ample for high-resolution gaming textures.

The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with no benchmark results in the database, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. Its strengths are entirely in raw compute specifications: 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, 79.07 TFLOPS FP16, 96 GB of HBM3 memory, 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, and 312 tensor cores. These figures point to a device optimized for AI training, inference, and large-scale data processing rather than interactive graphics. The H20's 500 W TDP and SXM module form factor require a server environment, and its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface supports high-throughput data movement.

Users seeking a graphics card for gaming or desktop rendering should choose the RX 7800 XT, as it delivers actual measured performance across multiple benchmarks and supports modern graphics APIs. Users needing a compute accelerator for memory-intensive or tensor-based workloads should choose the H20, based on its specification sheet, even though no benchmark scores are available to confirm its real-world performance. The database shows a clear division: the RX 7800 XT is a validated performer in graphics tests, while the H20's value rests on its architectural capabilities, particularly its massive memory pool and tensor core count.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Navi 32 (AMD) versus GH100 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Hopper
• Generation: Navi III (RX 7000) versus Server Hopper (Hxx)
• Transistors: 28,100 million versus 80,000 million
• Die size: 346 mm² versus 814 mm²
• Transistor density: 81.2M / mm² versus 98.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1295 MHz versus 1830 MHz
• Boost clock: 2430 MHz versus 1980 MHz
• Game clock: 2124 MHz versus null
• Memory clock: 2438 MHz 19.5 Gbps effective versus 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 96 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM3
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 6144 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 624.1 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s
• Shading units: 3840 versus 9984
• TMUs: 240 versus 312
• ROPs: 96 versus 24
• RT cores: 60 versus null
• Tensor cores: null versus 312
• Pixel rate: 233.3 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 583.2 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 37.32 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS
• FP16: 37.32 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 263 W versus 500 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus null
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 900 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus No outputs
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm x 50 mm versus null
• Release date: 2023-09-05 versus 2024-01-31
• Predecessor: Navi II versus Server Ada
• Successor: Navi IV versus Server Blackwell
• Launch MSRP: 499 USD versus null