NVIDIA H200 NVL vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a stark contrast in benchmark presence between these two NVIDIA accelerators. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a single recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores at all, resulting in an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50. This absence of measured data for the N1 16SM means no direct head-to-head comparison can be constructed from the database; the H200 NVL stands alone in terms of quantifiable performance evidence.

The H200 NVL’s score of 334,891 places it in a competitive tier relative to its nearest rivals in the database. It trails the NVIDIA B200, which averages 345,482, by 3.1%. The gap to the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is larger, with that part scoring 369,831, putting it 9.4% ahead of the H200 NVL. Conversely, the H200 NVL leads the AMD Instinct MI300X, which averages 317,994, by 5.3%, and it extends that advantage to 13.2% over the NVIDIA L40S, which scores 295,763. These deltas show the H200 NVL sitting in the upper-middle of this peer group, clearly ahead of the MI300X and L40S but behind the B200 and B300 in raw OpenCL throughput.

Because the N1 16SM lacks any benchmark entries, the database cannot provide a comparable score, percentile movement, or rival delta for that device. Its percentile of 50 appears to reflect the median position of an unmeasured part rather than a performance achievement. The H200 NVL, with its 100th percentile placement, represents the top of the recorded performance distribution, while the N1 16SM effectively has no measured standing.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural generations and target entirely different segments of the NVIDIA lineup. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip based on the Hopper architecture, belonging to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. The N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. This distinction is fundamental: Hopper is a dedicated server compute architecture, while Blackwell 2.0 in this implementation serves as an integrated graphics processor, as indicated by its IGP slot designation.

Both parts are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. However, the transistor and die details diverge sharply. The H200 NVL integrates 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². The N1 16SM’s transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 382 mm², less than half the H200 NVL’s footprint. This smaller die, combined with far fewer compute units, indicates a fundamentally different design goal: the H200 NVL maximizes parallel throughput, while the N1 16SM prioritizes integration and lower complexity.

The memory subsystems are also vastly different. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 4.89 TB/s. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The H200 NVL’s memory bandwidth is an order of magnitude higher, reflecting its role as a high-throughput compute accelerator. Memory clock rates differ as well: the H200 NVL runs at 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective speed, while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The effective data rate per pin is higher on the N1 16SM, but the narrow bus width caps total bandwidth.

Compute resources show the most pronounced divergence. The H200 NVL carries 16,896 shading units, 528 texture mapping units, and 528 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed. The N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. This represents an 8.25x difference in shading unit count and an 8.25x difference in tensor core count. The H200 NVL’s pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s, while the N1 16SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s, a notable inversion given the H200 NVL’s much larger compute core count. Texture rate also favors the H200 NVL at 942.5 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s for the N1 16SM.

Clock behavior reflects their different roles. The H200 NVL runs at a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The N1 16SM has a lower base of 741 MHz but a much higher boost of 2346 MHz. This suggests the N1 16SM is designed to ramp aggressively when needed, while the H200 NVL maintains a more sustained, steady clock under continuous load. Floating point throughput confirms the H200 NVL’s dominance: it delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32 and 120.6 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 and 9.609 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). The H200 NVL is 6.3x faster in FP32 and 12.6x faster in FP16.

Power and physical characteristics further separate the two. The H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, suggests a 1000 W power supply, and occupies a dual-slot form factor with dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The N1 16SM has an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP slot width, meaning it does not occupy a standard expansion slot. The H200 NVL has no display outputs, while the N1 16SM includes a single HDMI output. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, but the H200 NVL is a discrete card while the N1 16SM is integrated.

FAQ

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL. It trails the NVIDIA B200 (345,482) by 3.1% and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC (369,831) by 9.4%. It leads the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994) by 5.3% and the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 13.2%.

Q: Does the N1 16SM have any recorded benchmark data?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the N1 16SM, giving it an average score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50. The H200 NVL, by contrast, has a percentile rank of 100.

Q: What memory configuration does each part use?

A: The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which part has more shading units and tensor cores?

A: The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units and 528 tensor cores. The N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units and 64 tensor cores. The H200 NVL also has 528 TMUs versus 128 TMUs on the N1 16SM.

Q: Do both parts use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. However, the H200 NVL has an 814 mm² die with 80,000 million transistors, while the N1 16SM has a 382 mm² die with an unknown transistor count.

Q: What are the FP32 and FP16 throughput figures for each?

A: The H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32 and 120.6 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 and 9.609 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1).

The Verdict

The data indicates that the H200 NVL and N1 16SM serve completely different purposes within NVIDIA’s product stack. The H200 NVL is a server-class accelerator with a 100th percentile benchmark ranking, a large HBM3e memory pool, and massive compute throughput. The N1 16SM is an integrated processor with no recorded benchmarks, a smaller die, and a fraction of the compute resources. Any comparison of raw performance is one-sided: the H200 NVL dominates in shading units, tensor cores, FP32, FP16, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and die size. The N1 16SM does not appear in the database’s benchmark results, so it cannot be positioned relative to the H200 NVL in measured performance.

The N1 16SM does hold advantages in specific non-throughput metrics. It has a higher pixel rate at 56.30 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s, a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 1785 MHz, and includes ray tracing cores, which the H200 NVL lacks entirely. It also includes a display output, while the H200 NVL has none. These traits point to a graphics-oriented or integrated role rather than a pure compute role. However, the lack of benchmark data means these features cannot be validated against any measured performance outcome.

For users seeking maximum compute throughput, the H200 NVL is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 334,891 OpenCL score places it above the MI300X and L40S, and its 100th percentile ranking confirms its position at the top of the database distribution. For users needing an integrated solution with ray tracing and display output, the N1 16SM offers those capabilities, but the database provides no evidence of its performance level. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the H200 NVL is a high-performance server accelerator with verified results, while the N1 16SM is an unmeasured integrated part with a different feature set.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip (Hopper architecture, Server Hopper generation), while the N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip (Blackwell 2.0 architecture, Blackwell IGP generation). The H200 NVL has an 814 mm² die with 80,000 million transistors; the N1 16SM has a 382 mm² die with an unknown transistor count. The H200 NVL’s base clock is 1365 MHz and boost clock is 1785 MHz; the N1 16SM’s base is 741 MHz and boost is 2346 MHz.

Memory differs completely: the H200 NVL uses 141 GB HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth and a 1593 MHz memory clock (6.4 Gbps effective). The N1 16SM uses 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and a 1067 MHz memory clock (8.5 Gbps effective). Compute units: the H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores; the N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores.

Throughput: the H200 NVL achieves 42.84 GPixel/s, 942.5 GTexel/s, 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, and 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The N1 16SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s, 300.3 GTexel/s, 9.609 TFLOPS FP32, and 9.609 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). Power and form factor: the H200 NVL has a 600 W TDP, 8-pin EPS connector, 1000 W suggested PSU, dual-slot width, and dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm. The N1 16SM has an unknown TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and IGP slot width with no listed dimensions.

Interfaces and outputs: both use PCIe 5.0 x16. The H200 NVL has no display outputs; the N1 16SM has one HDMI output. Release timing also differs: the H200 NVL was released on 2024-11-17, while the N1 16SM has a release date of 2026-05-31. The H200 NVL lists a predecessor (Server Ada) and successor (Server Blackwell); the N1 16SM lists neither.

Where Each One Wins

The H200 NVL wins decisively in compute-oriented metrics. Its FP32 throughput of 60.32 TFLOPS is 6.3x higher than the N1 16SM’s 9.609 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 120.6 TFLOPS is 12.6x higher than the N1 16SM’s 9.609 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the H200 NVL at 942.5 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is a 17.9x advantage for the H200 NVL at 4.89 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. The H200 NVL also has 8.25x more shading units and 8.25x more tensor cores. Its benchmark score of 334,891 and 100th percentile ranking give it the only recorded performance win in this comparison.

The N1 16SM wins in specific feature-based categories. Its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s exceeds the H200 NVL’s 42.84 GPixel/s, indicating faster rasterization output per clock. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is higher than the H200 NVL’s 1785 MHz, suggesting greater single-thread or burst capability. It includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the H200 NVL does not have, making it the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing support. It also provides a display output (one HDMI), while the H200 NVL has no outputs, so the N1 16SM is the only option for direct display connectivity. Its smaller 382 mm² die and IGP form factor mean it does not require a dedicated power connector or expansion slot, unlike the H200 NVL’s 600 W TDP and dual-slot footprint.

In use-case terms, the H200 NVL is suited for workloads that demand high memory bandwidth, massive parallel FP32/FP16 throughput, and sustained compute density, such as large-scale server processing. The N1 16SM is suited for integrated environments where a display output, ray tracing capability, and a compact footprint are priorities, though its performance remains unmeasured in the database. The two parts do not compete in the same segment; the data shows the H200 NVL as a high-end server accelerator and the N1 16SM as an integrated graphics processor with a different feature set.