NVIDIA H20 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The NVIDIA H20 and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM represent two distinct approaches to server acceleration within the current NVIDIA lineup. The H20 is a dedicated discrete accelerator built on the Hopper architecture, while the N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the newer Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The recorded data for both parts shows a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, indicating they sit at the median of the database’s tracked performance distribution. However, the underlying specifications and design philosophies diverge sharply, leading to very different application profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The H20 wins decisively in raw compute throughput for standard floating-point workloads. Its FP32 performance is recorded at 39.54 TFLOPS, while the N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS in the same precision. That puts the H20 ahead by roughly 64.5 percent in FP32, a substantial margin for any task that relies on traditional shader or general-purpose GPU compute. The H20 also holds a commanding lead in FP16 performance, reaching 79.07 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, compared to the N1X 40SM’s 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. For half-precision workloads, the H20 is over three times faster.

The N1X 40SM wins in memory capacity and in specific rendering-related throughput metrics. It carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, versus the H20’s 96 GB of HBM3. That is a 33 percent larger memory pool, which directly benefits workloads that require large datasets resident on the GPU, such as certain inference batches or in-memory databases. Additionally, the N1X 40SM has a higher pixel rate at 93.84 GPixel/s compared to the H20’s 47.52 GPixel/s. The N1X 40SM also edges out the H20 in texture rate, posting 750.7 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. These two metrics suggest the N1X 40SM is better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks, despite being an IGP.

Architecture Differences

The H20 uses the GH100 chip built on the Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 80,000 million transistors across an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3 million per square millimeter. The N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but with a much smaller 382 mm² die. Its transistor count is listed as unknown, and no density figure is recorded.

The H20 features 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It does not list any dedicated ray tracing cores, but it does include 312 tensor cores. The N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. It includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. The N1X 40SM’s higher ROP count and presence of ray tracing cores indicate a more rasterization-oriented design, while the H20’s massive shading unit count and dense tensor core array point to a compute-first accelerator.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The H20 uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus width and 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The N1X 40SM uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s. The H20’s bandwidth is roughly 14.8 times higher, which is typical for a discrete accelerator with stacked memory. The N1X 40SM trades bandwidth for capacity and simplicity, relying on a wider pool of slower memory.

Clock behavior also differs. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The N1X 40SM has a much lower base clock of 741 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz. This suggests the N1X 40SM is designed to scale aggressively under load, while the H20 maintains a more consistent, higher baseline frequency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts, and no wins are recorded for either side. The comparison therefore rests entirely on the specification-level metrics. The most significant gap appears in FP32 throughput. The H20’s 39.54 TFLOPS versus the N1X 40SM’s 24.02 TFLOPS represents a 64.5 percent advantage, making the H20 the clear choice for any FP32-heavy simulation, scientific computing, or general compute workload.

In FP16, the gap widens further. The H20’s 79.07 TFLOPS is 3.29 times the N1X 40SM’s 24.02 TFLOPS. This is particularly relevant for machine learning inference and training, where half-precision arithmetic is common. The H20’s 2:1 FP16 ratio means it can double its throughput relative to FP32, while the N1X 40SM operates at a 1:1 ratio, offering no such advantage.

Memory bandwidth is another area of clear separation. The H20’s 4.03 TB/s is vastly superior to the N1X 40SM’s 273.2 GB/s. This bandwidth disparity affects any memory-bound kernel, including large matrix operations, graph analytics, and high-resolution tensor manipulations. The H20 can feed its compute units at a much higher rate, reducing the likelihood of memory stalls.

The N1X 40SM counters with a higher pixel rate and texture rate. Its 93.84 GPixel/s is 97.5 percent higher than the H20’s 47.52 GPixel/s. Its 750.7 GTexel/s is 21.5 percent higher than the H20’s 617.8 GTexel/s. These wins matter for graphics pipelines, but the database lists both parts as having no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support. The N1X 40SM does include a single HDMI output, while the H20 has no display outputs. For actual graphics rendering, the N1X 40SM has the advantage in raw fill rates, though the lack of standard graphics API support in the database limits the practical applicability.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. The H20 uses the GH100 chip with 80,000 million transistors and an 814 mm² die. The N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip with unknown transistors and a 382 mm² die. The H20 is built on Hopper, the N1X 40SM on Blackwell 2.0. Both use a 5 nm TSMC process.

Memory capacity favors the N1X 40SM at 128 GB versus 96 GB. Memory type differs entirely: HBM3 for the H20, LPDDR5X for the N1X 40SM. Bus width is 6144 bits versus 256 bits. Bandwidth is 4.03 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: 9984 shading units versus 5120, 312 TMUs versus 320, 24 ROPs versus 40. The N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, while the H20 lists no ray tracing cores and has 312 tensor cores.

Clock speeds differ: base 1830 MHz versus 741 MHz, boost 1980 MHz versus 2346 MHz. The H20’s memory clock is 1313 MHz at 5.3 Gbps effective, while the N1X 40SM runs at 1067 MHz at 8.5 Gbps effective.

Power and form factor diverge. The H20 is rated at 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W and uses an SXM Module slot width. The N1X 40SM’s TDP is unknown, has no power connectors, and is an IGP. The H20 has no display outputs, while the N1X 40SM has one HDMI port.

Release dates differ significantly. The H20 launched on January 31, 2024, while the N1X 40SM launched on May 31, 2026. The H20 lists a predecessor as Server Ada and a successor as Server Blackwell. The N1X 40SM has no predecessor or successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS in FP32, which is 64.5 percent higher than the N1X 40SM’s 24.02 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The H20 provides 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth via HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus. The N1X 40SM provides 273.2 GB/s via LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The H20’s bandwidth is approximately 14.8 times higher.

Q: Which part has more memory capacity?

A: The N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the H20 has 96 GB of HBM3. The N1X 40SM offers 33 percent more capacity.

Q: Are there ray tracing cores on either GPU?

A: The N1X 40SM includes 40 ray tracing cores. The H20 does not have a recorded ray tracing core count.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each?

A: The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The N1X 40SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support standard graphics APIs?

A: The database records DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for both parts. The N1X 40SM does have one HDMI output, while the H20 has no display outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. The NVIDIA H20 is the compute-oriented part. Its 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, 79.07 TFLOPS FP16, and 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice for numerically intensive workloads. The higher tensor core count of 312 adds further weight to its position for machine learning tasks. The H20’s 500 W TDP and SXM Module form factor indicate a server-class discrete accelerator designed for sustained throughput.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the capacity and graphics-oriented part. Its 128 GB memory pool, 40 ray tracing cores, higher pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s, and higher texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s give it advantages in rendering and in workloads that need large resident datasets. The lower 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 are sufficient for many tasks, but the 1:1 ratio means no half-precision boost. The unknown TDP and IGP slot width suggest a more integrated, power-constrained environment.

For a server workload dominated by FP32 or FP16 compute, the H20 is the only rational pick based on the recorded figures. For a workload that needs maximum memory capacity, higher fill rates, or ray tracing support, the N1X 40SM offers capabilities the H20 lacks. The absence of head-to-head benchmark results means the comparison relies on these specification-level deltas, but the differences are large enough to be decisive. The H20 wins on compute throughput and bandwidth, the N1X 40SM wins on capacity and rendering throughput. The choice rests on which of those priorities matters more for the target application.