Head-to-head AI inference benchmark comparison of H200 (NVIDIA Hopper) and MI355X (AMD CDNA 4) on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B. Latency, throughput, and cost across LLM workloads. Use the chart controls below to switch sequences, precisions, and metrics β same interactions as the main inference chart.
AgentX replays real coding-agent sessions rather than fixed-length prompts, so context grows turn over turn and most of each request is served from cache instead of being recomputed. That turns the comparison into a systems question: KV transfer between nodes, prefix-aware routing, and cache capacity all move the curve alongside raw chip throughput. Fixed-sequence workloads stay the clean baseline for kernel and silicon performance, so the two scenarios answer different questions about the same hardware. Learn more about AgentX β
At 97 tok/s/user interactivity on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B, H200 delivers 8236 tok/s/chip at $0.04 per million tokens; MI355X delivers 39060 tok/s/chip at $0.01. MI355X is 286% cheaper per token; MI355X delivers 374% more tok/s/chip at this point.
H200 posts 5515 tok/s/chip for $0.06 per million tokens at 142 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B; MI355X posts 29354 tok/s/chip for $0.01. MI355X is 333% cheaper per token; MI355X delivers 432% more tok/s/chip.
Throughput at 187 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.5 397B-A17B: H200 hits 3033 tok/s/chip, MI355X hits 18072. Per-million costs land at $0.11 and $0.02 respectively. MI355X is 385% cheaper per token; MI355X delivers 496% more tok/s/chip. (Numbers reflect the default agentic-traces Β· fp8 selection for this URL β table and chart below update if you change sequence, precision, or model in the controls.)
| Metric | Interactivity (tok/s/user) | Interactivity (tok/s/user) | Interactivity (tok/s/user) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Throughput (tok/s/chip) | H200:8236.1MI355X:39059.5 | H200:5515.3MI355X:29354.2 | H200:3032.7MI355X:18072.2 |
| Cost ($/M tok) | H200:$0.041MI355X:$0.011 | H200:$0.061MI355X:$0.014 | H200:$0.112MI355X:$0.023 |
| tok/s/MW | H200:6011752MI355X:18688759 | H200:4025740MI355X:14045086 | H200:2213642MI355X:8647005 |
| Concurrency | H200:~13MI355X:~34 | H200:~9MI355X:~21 | H200:~4MI355X:~13 |
Agentic inference metrics from the AgentX scenario and fixed-sequence inference metrics across models, hardware configurations, and serving parameters.
TCO $/chip/hr:
Source: SemiAnalysis Market July 2026 Pricing Surveys & AI Cloud TCO Model
Note: Disaggregated inference configurations (e.g., MoRI SGLang, Dynamo TRTLLM) calculate cost per million tokens per decode chip or per prefill chip, rather than per total chip count. This makes direct token cost comparison with aggregated configs not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Note: Disaggregated inference configurations (e.g., MoRI SGLang, Dynamo TRTLLM) calculate input throughput per decode chip or per prefill chip, rather than per total chip count. This makes direct input throughput comparison with aggregated configs not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Note: Disaggregated inference configurations (e.g., MoRI SGLang, Dynamo TRTLLM) calculate output throughput per decode chip or per prefill chip, rather than per total chip count. This makes direct output throughput comparison with aggregated configs not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Note: Disaggregated inference configurations (e.g., MoRI SGLang, Dynamo TRTLLM) calculate power per decode chip or per prefill chip, rather than per total chip count. This makes direct power comparison with aggregated configs not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Note: Disaggregated inference configurations (e.g., MoRI SGLang, Dynamo TRTLLM) calculate Joules per decode chip or per prefill chip, rather than per total chip count. This makes direct Joules per token comparison with aggregated configs not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Matching measurements exist, but their chip series are hidden.
Shift+Scroll to zoom β’ Drag to pan β’ Double-click to reset β’ Click a point to pin tooltip
1 The ATOM engine is promising, however it has yet to serve production tokens. It is still in its infant stage.
Qwen3.5 397B 8K / 1K Total Tokens per $1 TCO vs. Interactivity