NVIDIA H20 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA H20 and the NVIDIA RTX A400. The H20 has no benchmark scores in the database, while the RTX A400 has a set of nine recorded tests. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible, but the available data for the RTX A400 and the architectural specifications of both cards provide a clear picture of their relative positions.

The RTX A400's recorded benchmark results show a mixed profile across different test types. Its highest score comes from Geekbench OpenCL at 22,844, with Geekbench Vulkan close behind at 22,237. These compute-oriented tests indicate the card's capability in general-purpose GPU workloads. In contrast, the Passmark suite shows much lower scores: DirectX 9 at 87, DirectX 11 at 37, DirectX 10 at 32, and DirectX 12 at 27. The Passmark G3D score is 5,983, while the G2D score is 899, and the GPU compute score is 2,557. The average benchmark score for the RTX A400 is 6,078.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6,077 and a delta percentage of 0, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 with a delta of 0.5%, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 with a delta of -0.6%, and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 with a delta of 1%. These figures place the RTX A400 in a narrow competitive band where the differences among rivals are within roughly one percent, indicating very close performance parity in aggregate scoring.

The H20, by contrast, has no benchmark scores recorded, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero. The database assigns it a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile. The H20's lack of recorded benchmarks means its performance cannot be quantified in the same way, but its specifications suggest a vastly different performance envelope. The data indicates that any head-to-head comparison would be dominated by the H20's massive resource allocation, though without measured scores, that remains an inference from the hardware specifications rather than a recorded result.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA H20 is built on the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, produced on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The H20 belongs to the Server Hopper generation, while the RTX A400 is part of the Workstation Ampere generation. The H20 is a server-class SXM module, whereas the RTX A400 is a single-slot workstation card.

The transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude. The H20 contains 80,000 million transistors on a die size of 814 mm², yielding a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². The RTX A400 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per mm². The H20's die is more than four times larger in area and packs nearly ten times the transistors, reflecting the advanced 5 nm process and the larger server-oriented design.

Memory systems are fundamentally different. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and a bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The H20's memory bandwidth is over forty times higher, and its capacity is twenty-four times larger. The H20's memory clock is listed at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective, while the RTX A400's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The HBM3 technology on the H20 provides far greater bandwidth despite the lower effective clock rate, due to the extremely wide 6144-bit interface.

Compute resources show similar disparity. The H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The H20 has 312 tensor cores, while the RTX A400 has 24 tensor cores and 6 RT cores. The H20's FP32 throughput is 39.54 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The H20's pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 617.8 GTexel/s. The RTX A400's pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The H20 runs at higher frequencies, though its advantage lies more in the sheer number of compute units than in clock speed alone. The power draw reflects the performance gulf: the H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W, while the RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX A400 requires no power connectors, while the H20 is an SXM module with no listed power connectors due to its server form factor.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are absent on the H20, which has no outputs, while the RTX A400 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The API support also diverges: the H20 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in any scenario requiring display output. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors enable multi-monitor setups, and its API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run graphics applications and games. The H20 has no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it unsuitable for any visual output task. The RTX A400 also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms, with a 50 W TDP compared to the H20's 500 W, and its single-slot form factor with no power connectors makes it easy to install in standard workstations.

The H20 wins decisively in raw compute capacity. Its FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS is approximately 14.6 times the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS is roughly 29.2 times the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS, and the H20's 2:1 ratio for FP16 indicates specialized tensor performance. The H20's 4.03 TB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the RTX A400's 96.00 GB/s, making the H20 far better suited for memory-bound workloads like large model inference or high-resolution data processing. The H20's 96 GB of HBM3 memory provides 24 times the capacity of the RTX A400's 4 GB, enabling datasets that would never fit in the smaller card's memory.

The RTX A400's nearest rival data shows it performs in a narrow band around comparable cards. Its average score of 6,078 is within 1% of the GeForce MX230, the Quadro P2000, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and the Radeon 760M. This indicates the RTX A400 is a modest performer in its class, suitable for entry-level workstation tasks. The H20 has no recorded benchmark scores, so its wins cannot be quantified in the same way, but the specification differences are so large that the H20 would dominate in every compute-oriented metric the database tracks.

The RTX A400 wins on connectivity and compatibility. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is widely supported in desktop motherboards, while the H20's PCIe 5.0 x16 and SXM form factor require server platforms. The RTX A400's release date of April 2024 is later than the H20's January 2024, but both are listed as Active in production status. The RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada, while the H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

The Verdict

The data indicates two entirely different products serving different markets. The NVIDIA H20 is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 500 W power envelope. Its 96 GB of HBM3 memory, 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, and 39.54 TFLOPS FP32 performance position it for large-scale compute workloads in data centers. The lack of recorded benchmarks means its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database, but its specifications place it in a completely different performance class.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, full graphics API support, and a 50 W power envelope. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 performance position it for entry-level visualization and compute tasks. The recorded benchmark scores show it performs competitively with its nearest rivals, all within 1% of each other, and its 35th percentile rank indicates it sits below the midpoint of all GPUs in the database.

Who should pick which depends entirely on the workload. The H20 suits server environments where compute throughput and memory capacity are paramount and no display is needed. The RTX A400 suits workstation environments where graphics output, API compatibility, and low power draw are required. The H20's 500 W TDP and SXM form factor demand server infrastructure, while the RTX A400's single-slot design and lack of power connectors allow installation in standard desktop systems. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and the data confirms they are not competitors but complementary products for different segments.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the NVIDIA H20 and the RTX A400?

A: The H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory, while the RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. The H20's capacity is 24 times larger.

Q: Which card supports display outputs?

A: The RTX A400 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The H20 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each card?

A: The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32. The H20's FP32 throughput is approximately 14.6 times higher.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A400's average score is 6,078. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0% delta), the Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% delta), the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (-0.6% delta), and the Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% delta). All are within 1% of each other.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The H20 has a memory bandwidth of 4.03 TB/s, while the RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s. The H20's bandwidth is over forty times higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA H20 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | Hopper | Ampere |

| Chip | GH100 | GA107 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 80,000 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 814 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 98.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1830 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1980 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1313 MHz 5.3 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 96 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 6144 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.03 TB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 9984 | 768 |

| TMUs | 312 | 24 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | 312 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 617.8 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 39.54 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 500 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 900 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 163 mm 6.4 inches length, 69 mm 2.7 inches height |

| Release Date | 2024-01-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Server Ada | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Server Blackwell | Workstation Ada |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 35 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 6078 |