Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B · Performance per Dollar

Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B — H200 vs MI300X Performance per Dollar

Cost per million tokens of H200 (NVIDIA Hopper) versus MI300X (AMD CDNA 3) on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B. Owning-hyperscaler TCO normalized by output tokens — performance per dollar across LLM workloads. Pick the more cost-efficient SKU at every target interactivity level. Use the chart controls below to switch sequences, precisions, and metrics — same interactions as the main inference chart.

H200 edges MI300X at 43 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B — $0.70 per million tokens versus $0.89, a 27% cost-per-token gap.

Push Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B to 53 tok/s/user and H200 lands at $0.82 per million tokens against MI300X's $1.63 — H200 pulls ahead by 99%.

H200: $0.94 per million tokens. MI300X: $2.52. Both at 62 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B, with H200 167% cheaper. (Numbers reflect the default 1k/1k · fp8 selection for this URL — table and chart below update if you change sequence, precision, or model in the controls.)

GPU pricing (owning hyperscaler): H200 $1.41/GPU/hr · MI300X $1.12/GPU/hr. Source: SemiAnalysis Market August 2025 Pricing Surveys & AI Cloud TCO Model.

View full latency + throughput comparison →

Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B: H200 versus MI300X cost per million tokens at matched interactivity levels
H200 versus MI300X cost per million tokens for this comparison's canonical default workload. Lower cost indicates better performance per dollar.
Interpolated from real benchmark data. Edit target interactivity values below to compare at different operating points.
Metric
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Dollar per Million Tokens
H200:$0.703MI300X:$0.893
H200:$0.821MI300X:$1.633
H200:$0.943MI300X:$2.517
Concurrency
H200:~51MI300X:~34
H200:~37MI300X:~15
H200:~27MI300X:~8

Inference Performance

Inference performance metrics across different models, hardware configurations, and serving parameters.