NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891, while the NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230. The H200 NVL is the winner, with a delta of 147.6% over the A10M. That is a substantial margin, more than double the raw score of the older accelerator.

To contextualize this result, the H200 NVL sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no recorded device performs better in this test. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA B200, scores 345,482, which is 3.1% higher, so the H200 NVL trails that part by a narrow margin. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X, which scores 317,994, the H200 NVL leads by 5.3%. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, putting the H200 NVL 9.4% behind that part. The NVIDIA L40S scores 295,763, and the H200 NVL is 13.2% ahead of it.

The A10M, by contrast, sits at the 96th percentile among all GPUs. Its closest rivals are clustered tightly around its score. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218, a delta of 0% against the A10M. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774, 0.4% higher. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472, 0.9% higher. This indicates the A10M is effectively at parity with its immediate peers in this workload, with no significant advantage or deficit.

The 147.6% delta in the head-to-head is decisive. The H200 NVL delivers more than 2.4 times the OpenCL score of the A10M. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in compute capability. For any workload that scales with raw OpenCL throughput, the H200 NVL is the clear choice based on this measurement alone.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded benchmark between the H200 NVL and the A10M?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 334,891 versus 135,230 for the A10M, a delta of 147.6%.

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

A: The H200 NVL is 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S and 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X. It is 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200 and 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC.

Q: How does the A10M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The A10M is essentially at parity with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (0% delta), 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800, 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon PRO V620.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The H200 NVL is at the 100th percentile among all GPUs, while the A10M is at the 96th percentile.

Q: Does the A10M have any architectural feature that the H200 NVL lacks?

A: Yes, the A10M includes 56 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL has no recorded ray tracing cores and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two GPUs?

A: The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory with a 6144-bit bus and 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 320-bit bus and 500.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different NVIDIA generations and foundries. The H200 NVL is built on the GH100 chip using the Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The A10M uses the GA102 chip with the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference alone indicates a significant gap in manufacturing maturity and transistor density. The H200 NVL packs 80,000 million transistors on a die size of 814 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 98.3 million per mm². The A10M has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, giving a density of 45.1 million per mm². That is a 2.2 times higher density for the H200 NVL, which allows for far more compute resources in a similar physical footprint.

The compute core counts reflect this gap. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. While the H200 NVL has more than double the shading units and TMUs, the A10M has a higher pixel rate: 130.8 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL. The texture rates tell the opposite story: the H200 NVL delivers 942.5 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s for the A10M. The FP32 compute is also heavily skewed: 60.32 TFLOPS for the H200 NVL versus 23.44 TFLOPS for the A10M. The FP16 rates differ even more sharply: the H200 NVL reaches 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A10M manages 23.44 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means the H200 NVL offers a dedicated FP16 acceleration path, while the A10M does not.

Tensor core counts follow the same pattern: 528 for the H200 NVL versus 224 for the A10M. The H200 NVL also has no ray tracing cores, while the A10M includes 56. The H200 NVL lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, whereas the A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This indicates the H200 NVL is purely a compute accelerator, while the A10M retains graphics API compatibility, likely for more general workloads.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e with a 6144-bit bus and 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 with a 320-bit bus and 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The H200 NVL has nearly 10 times the bandwidth and more than 7 times the capacity. The memory clock rates also differ: 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective for the H200 NVL, versus 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective for the A10M. The effective rate is higher on the A10M, but the bus width and memory type give the H200 NVL a massive bandwidth advantage.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W, is dual-slot, and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The A10M has a TDP of 150 W, is single-slot, and needs only a 450 W suggested PSU. Both use an 8-pin EPS connector. The H200 NVL uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Dimensions are similar: both are 267 mm long and about 111 to 112 mm high. The production status differs as well: the H200 NVL is active, while the A10M is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. The H200 NVL outperforms the A10M by 147.6% in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test. It also carries far more memory, bandwidth, and compute resources. For any workload that depends on FP32, FP16, or tensor operations, the H200 NVL is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the A10M is not without its own strengths. It has a higher pixel rate (130.8 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s), ray tracing cores, and full graphics API support. It also draws only 150 W versus 600 W, and fits in a single slot. For deployments where power draw and physical space are constrained, and where graphics APIs are required, the A10M could be the more practical option. The data shows the A10M is also at parity with its closest rivals, so it is not a weak performer in its own segment.

The production status is relevant: the H200 NVL is active, while the A10M is end-of-life. The A10M also has no recorded release date, while the H200 NVL was released in November 2024. The H200 NVL belongs to the Server Hopper generation, while the A10M is from Server Ampere. The predecessor of the A10M is Tesla Turing, and its successor is Server Ada. The H200 NVL lists Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor.

The verdict from the data: choose the H200 NVL for maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth. Choose the A10M for low power, single-slot installation, and graphics API support, with the understanding that it is end-of-life and significantly slower in raw compute.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The process node is 5 nm for the H200 NVL versus 8 nm for the A10M. The foundry is TSMC for the former and Samsung for the latter. Transistor count is 80,000 million versus 28,300 million. Die size is 814 mm² versus 628 mm². Transistor density is 98.3M per mm² versus 45.1M per mm². The base clock is 1365 MHz versus 975 MHz, and the boost clock is 1785 MHz versus 1635 MHz. Memory clock effective rate is 6.4 Gbps versus 12.5 Gbps.

Memory size is 141 GB versus 20 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width is 6144 bit versus 320 bit. Bandwidth is 4.89 TB/s versus 500.2 GB/s. Shading units are 16,896 versus 7,168. TMUs are 528 versus 224. ROPs are 24 versus 80. Ray tracing cores are absent on the H200 NVL, while the A10M has 56. Tensor cores are 528 versus 224. Pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s versus 130.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 942.5 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 60.32 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS. FP16 is 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 600 W versus 150 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. API support: DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are N/A for the H200 NVL, while the A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Height is 111 mm for the H200 NVL versus 112 mm for the A10M. Production status is active versus end-of-life. Release date is November 2024 for the H200 NVL, with none recorded for the A10M.