NVIDIA H20 vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the NVIDIA H20 and the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The H20 is built on the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, targeting server deployments. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, designed for embedded and mobile workstation contexts. Both are manufactured by NVIDIA on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but they serve fundamentally different segments.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between these two GPUs?

A: The H20 features 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s. This represents a roughly 9.3x difference in memory capacity and a 9.3x difference in bandwidth, favoring the H20 in both metrics.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput in FP32 operations?

A: The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation provides 23.04 TFLOPS. The H20 is approximately 1.7x faster in single-precision floating-point performance based on the recorded data.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The H20 consumes five times the power of the embedded part, reflecting its server-class positioning.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not oriented toward graphics workloads in the same way.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The H20's GH100 chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a density of 98.3M transistors per mm². The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation's AD104 chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 121.8M transistors per mm².

Architecture Differences

The H20 and RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation diverge sharply at the silicon level. The H20 uses the GH100 chip under the Hopper architecture, a design intended for large-scale server acceleration. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip under Ada Lovelace, a smaller and more power-efficient design aimed at embedded systems. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

Transistor budgets reveal the scale gap. The GH100 packs 80,000 million transistors across an 814 mm² die, while the AD104 contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The H20's transistor density is 98.3M per mm², whereas the AD104 achieves 121.8M per mm², indicating a more compact logic layout in the embedded chip. The H20 is the larger, more complex part by a wide margin.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The H20 carries 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The H20 leads in shading units and texture mapping units, but the embedded part has significantly more ROPs, which influences rasterization throughput. The H20 also includes 312 tensor cores, while the embedded GPU has 160 tensor cores. The H20 does not list RT cores, whereas the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation includes 40 RT cores, a notable feature gap for ray tracing workloads.

Memory architecture is another clear differentiator. The H20 uses HBM3 with 96 GB capacity, a 6144-bit bus, and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The embedded part uses GDDR6 with 12 GB capacity, a 192-bit bus, and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20's memory system is engineered for massive data movement in server environments, while the embedded GPU's smaller, lower-bandwidth memory suits compact form factors.

Clock behavior also differs. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation runs at a base of 1725 MHz and boosts to 2250 MHz. The embedded part has a higher boost ceiling, but the H20 starts from a higher base. Memory clocks show a similar split: the H20 runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, while the embedded part runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Physical and interface specifications reinforce the design divide. The H20 is an SXM Module with PCIe 5.0 x16 and no display outputs. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is an IGP with PCIe 4.0 x16 and no display outputs either. The H20 lists no power connectors, while the embedded part also lists none. The H20's suggested PSU is 900 W, versus 300 W for the embedded GPU. Release dates show the H20 launched in January 2024, while the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation launched in March 2023.

Where Each One Wins

The H20 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 39.54 TFLOPS exceeds the embedded part's 23.04 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) dwarfs the embedded GPU's 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1). Memory capacity and bandwidth are also clear H20 advantages, with 96 GB and 4.03 TB/s versus 12 GB and 432.0 GB/s. Texture rate favors the H20 at 617.8 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s. These metrics position the H20 for large-scale compute, AI training, and memory-intensive server tasks.

The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in efficiency-oriented areas. Its pixel rate of 144.0 GPixel/s exceeds the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, a 3x advantage in rasterization throughput. The embedded part also has 64 ROPs versus 24, and it includes 40 RT cores that the H20 lacks entirely. Its TDP of 100 W versus 500 W means far lower power draw, and its suggested PSU of 300 W versus 900 W reflects a much lighter system requirement. The embedded GPU also has a higher boost clock at 2250 MHz versus the H20's 1980 MHz.

The API support split also defines usage domains. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H20 reports N/A across all three, indicating it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering. The embedded part's higher pixel rate and RT core count reinforce its suitability for graphics and visualization workloads, while the H20's compute and memory dominance points to server-side acceleration.

In practical terms, the H20 wins where data volume and floating-point throughput matter most. The embedded GPU wins where power constraints, rasterization speed, and graphics API compatibility are priorities. The H20's 500 W TDP and SXM form factor require a server chassis, while the embedded part's 100 W TDP and IGP form factor fit into compact embedded systems.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The H20 uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, while the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace with the AD104 chip. The H20 belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation, whereas the embedded part belongs to the Ada-MW generation.

Process node and foundry are identical: both use 5 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply, with the H20 at 80,000 million and the embedded part at 35,800 million. Die sizes also differ, at 814 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density favors the embedded part at 121.8M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm².

Clock speeds show mixed results. The H20 has a higher base clock at 1830 MHz versus 1725 MHz. The embedded part has a higher boost clock at 2250 MHz versus 1980 MHz. Memory clocks differ in both frequency and effective rate: the H20 runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, while the embedded part runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major split. The H20 offers 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation offers 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20's memory capacity is eight times larger, and its bandwidth is over nine times higher.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. The H20 has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. The embedded part has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 160 tensor cores. The H20 also omits RT cores, while the embedded part includes 40.

Rates and throughput figures favor different cards in different areas. The H20 leads in FP32 at 39.54 TFLOPS, FP16 at 79.07 TFLOPS, and texture rate at 617.8 GTexel/s. The embedded part leads in pixel rate at 144.0 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s.

Power and form factor are stark contrasts. The H20 has a TDP of 500 W and is an SXM Module, while the embedded part has a TDP of 100 W and is an IGP. Suggested PSU ratings are 900 W for the H20 and 300 W for the embedded part. Both use PCIe x16, but the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 while the embedded part uses PCIe 4.0.

Display outputs are absent on both. API support differs completely, with the H20 listing N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and the embedded part listing DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is Active for both. Release dates are March 2023 for the embedded part and January 2024 for the H20. Predecessors and successors also differ: the H20 follows Server Ada and precedes Server Blackwell, while the embedded part follows Ampere-MW and precedes Blackwell-MW.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no individual test scores for either GPU, and no head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database. Both cards have an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. With zero wins recorded for either side, the quantitative comparison relies entirely on the specification-level figures provided.

The largest compute gap favors the H20. Its FP32 output of 39.54 TFLOPS is 71.6% higher than the embedded part's 23.04 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: the H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS, which is 3.4 times the embedded GPU's 23.04 TFLOPS. These differences indicate that the H20 is the clear choice for workloads dominated by floating-point arithmetic.

Memory bandwidth shows the H20 with 4.03 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s for the embedded part, a 9.3x advantage. Memory capacity follows the same ratio at 96 GB versus 12 GB. Texture rate also favors the H20 at 617.8 GTexel/s versus 360.0 GTexel/s, a 1.7x difference.

The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins decisively in pixel throughput. Its 144.0 GPixel/s is 3.0 times the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. ROP count reinforces this, with 64 versus 24. The embedded part also has a higher boost clock at 2250 MHz versus 1980 MHz, which contributes to its rasterization advantage.

Power efficiency strongly favors the embedded GPU. Its TDP of 100 W is one-fifth of the H20's 500 W. The suggested PSU rating of 300 W versus 900 W reflects a system-level power draw that is three times lower. The embedded part also supports modern graphics APIs, while the H20 lists none.

The overall picture from the data is a tradeoff between raw capacity and specialized throughput. The H20 uses its larger chip, higher transistor count, and massive HBM3 memory to dominate compute and bandwidth metrics. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses its higher pixel rate, RT cores, and lower power envelope to serve graphics-oriented embedded applications. No benchmark scores exist to rank them in real workloads, so the specification deltas stand as the primary evidence of their respective strengths.