NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA B200 and the NVIDIA A10M is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The B200 scores 345,482 points, while the A10M manages 135,230 points. This gives the B200 a 155.5% advantage, meaning it delivers more than two and a half times the raw compute performance of the A10M in this workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm.

The B200's score places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, a perfect standing that no other recorded GPU matches. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC at 369,831 points, the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 points, the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 points, and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 points. The B200 trails the B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6%, but it leads the H200 NVL by 3.2%, the MI300X by 8.6%, and the L40S by 16.8%. Within this elite group, the B200 sits comfortably in the upper half, only bested by its direct next-generation sibling.

The A10M, by contrast, sits at the 96th percentile, which is still a strong position but far from the top. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 points, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 points, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 points, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 points. The deltas here are tiny, ranging from 0% against the RTX 4000 Ada Generation to 0.9% behind the Radeon PRO V620. The A10M is effectively tied with these cards, all of them within a single percentage point of each other. The database shows a clear stratification: the B200 competes at the absolute frontier of recorded compute scores, while the A10M occupies a solid, mid-tier position among workstation-class accelerators.

The head-to-head delta of 155.5% is the headline figure. No other benchmark results are recorded for this pairing, so the analysis rests on this single data point, but it is consistent with the broader positions each card holds in the percentile rankings. The B200's score is more than double the A10M's score, and the gap is so large that no amount of workload tuning or driver optimization could plausibly close it.

The Verdict

The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA B200 is the superior compute accelerator in every measured dimension. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 345,482 dwarfs the A10M's 135,230, and its 100th percentile ranking versus the A10M's 96th percentile confirms that the B200 sits at the very top of the database while the A10M is merely near the top. The B200 also holds a 100% win rate in head-to-head benchmarks, taking the only recorded test.

Who should pick the B200? Any workload that demands maximum raw compute throughput, as measured by OpenCL, and any deployment where absolute performance is the primary criterion. The B200 is 155.5% ahead of the A10M, and it also outpaces three of its four nearest rivals in the database, including the H200 NVL by 3.2%, the MI300X by 8.6%, and the L40S by 16.8%. It only loses to the B300 SXM6 AC, which is 6.6% faster, but the B200 remains an active product while the A10M is end-of-life.

Who should pick the A10M? The data is less kind here. The A10M is tied with several contemporary workstation cards, all within 0.9% of each other, and it is far behind the B200. However, the A10M's 96th percentile ranking still places it above the vast majority of all GPUs in the database. If the workload is moderate and the deployment environment favors a lower-power, single-slot card, the A10M remains viable, but it cannot compete with the B200 on raw performance. The database shows no scenario where the A10M wins a head-to-head against the B200.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The B200 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The A10M uses the GA102 chip built on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference alone, 5 nm versus 8 nm, explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the B200 packs far more transistors into its design.

Transistor counts tell the story. The B200 has 104,000 million transistors, while the A10M has 28,300 million. That is a 3.7x difference in transistor count, and the B200 achieves this on a smaller process node. The A10M has a recorded die size of 628 mm² and a transistor density of 45.1M per mm², while the B200's die size and density are not recorded in the database. The B200's generational predecessor is listed as Server Hopper, and its successor is Server Rubin, placing it in the current flagship tier of NVIDIA's server lineup. The A10M's predecessor is Tesla Turing, and its successor is Server Ada, marking it as a product from the prior generation that is now end-of-life.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The B200 comes with 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s. The B200 has 8.2x the memory bandwidth, which is critical for memory-bound compute workloads. The B200's memory clock is recorded as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the A10M's memory clock is 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective. Despite the A10M's higher effective memory clock, its narrower bus and older memory type result in far lower total bandwidth.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, while the A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The B200 has 592 tensor cores, and the A10M has 224 tensor cores. The A10M has 56 ray tracing cores, while the B200's ray tracing core count is not recorded in the database. The B200's FP32 throughput is 74.45 TFLOPS versus the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS. In FP16, the B200 reaches 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, while the A10M reaches 23.44 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The B200's FP16 advantage is enormous, reflecting its tensor-heavy design for AI workloads.

Pixel and texture rates also differ. The B200 achieves 47.16 GPixel/s and 1,163.3 GTexel/s, while the A10M achieves 130.8 GPixel/s and 366.2 GTexel/s. The A10M actually has a higher pixel rate due to its larger ROP count, but the B200 dominates in texture rate by 3.2x. The B200 runs at a base clock of 700 MHz with a boost clock of 1965 MHz, while the A10M runs at a base clock of 975 MHz with a boost clock of 1635 MHz. The A10M has higher base clock, but the B200's boost clock is higher, and its massive core count more than compensates.

The B200 is an SXM Module with a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the A10M is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The B200 has no display outputs, and neither does the A10M. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200's API support is not recorded in the database. The A10M measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the B200's dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 than the NVIDIA A10M in the recorded benchmark?

A: The B200 scores 345,482 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the A10M scores 135,230 points. This gives the B200 a 155.5% lead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The B200 has 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth with 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus. The A10M has 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth with 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The B200 has 592 tensor cores, while the A10M has 224 tensor cores.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The B200 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the A10M is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The A10M has a TDP of 150 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The B200 is listed as Active, while the A10M is listed as End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins in raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, tensor core count, FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture rate, transistor count, and process node efficiency. It is the clear choice for AI training, large-scale inference, high-performance computing, and any workload that saturates memory bandwidth or requires massive parallel compute. Its 90 GB of HBM3e memory and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for models and datasets that would not fit in the A10M's 20 GB GDDR6 memory. The B200's 100th percentile ranking and 155.5% lead over the A10M in Geekbench OpenCL confirm its dominance in general compute tasks.

The A10M wins in a smaller set of areas. It has a higher pixel rate of 130.8 GPixel/s versus the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s, and it has a higher ROP count of 80 versus the B200's 24. The A10M also has ray tracing cores, with 56 recorded, while the B200's ray tracing core count is not recorded. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200's API support is not recorded. The A10M has a much lower TDP of 150 W versus the B200's 1000 W, and it is a single-slot card, while the B200 is an SXM Module. For deployments with strict power or physical space constraints, the A10M is the more practical option, but it cedes massive compute performance to the B200.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards. The B200 uses the GB100 chip on the Blackwell architecture, while the A10M uses the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture. The process node is 5 nm for the B200 and 8 nm for the A10M, with the foundry being TSMC for the B200 and Samsung for the A10M. Transistor count is 104,000 million for the B200 and 28,300 million for the A10M. The A10M has a recorded die size of 628 mm² and a transistor density of 45.1M per mm², while the B200 has neither recorded.

Base clocks are 700 MHz for the B200 and 975 MHz for the A10M. Boost clocks are 1965 MHz for the B200 and 1635 MHz for the A10M. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for the B200 and 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective for the A10M. Memory size is 90 GB for the B200 and 20 GB for the A10M. Memory type is HBM3e for the B200 and GDDR6 for the A10M. Bus width is 4096 bit for the B200 and 320 bit for the A10M. Memory bandwidth is 4.10 TB/s for the B200 and 500.2 GB/s for the A10M.

Shading units are 18,944 for the B200 and 7,168 for the A10M. TMUs are 592 for the B200 and 224 for the A10M. ROPs are 24 for the B200 and 80 for the A10M. Tensor cores are 592 for the B200 and 224 for the A10M. The A10M has 56 ray tracing cores, while the B200 has none recorded. Pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s for the B200 and 130.8 GPixel/s for the A10M. Texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s for the B200 and 366.2 GTexel/s for the A10M. FP32 is 74.45 TFLOPS for the B200 and 23.44 TFLOPS for the A10M. FP16 is 1,191.2 TFLOPS for the B200 and 23.44 TFLOPS for the A10M.

TDP is 1000 W for the B200 and 150 W for the A10M. Slot width is SXM Module for the B200 and single-slot for the A10M. The A10M has an 8-pin EPS power connector, while the B200 has none recorded. Suggested PSU is 1400 W for the B200 and 450 W for the A10M. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for the B200 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A10M. The B200 has no display outputs, and neither does the A10M. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 has no API support recorded. The A10M measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the B200 has no dimensions recorded. Production status is Active for the B200 and End-of-life for the A10M. Predecessors are Server Hopper for the B200 and Tesla Turing for the A10M. Successors are Server Rubin for the B200 and Server Ada for the A10M.