NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 and NVIDIA H20 serve distinctly different segments of the server accelerator market, and the recorded data makes the separation clear. The B200 SXM6 is the higher-performance, higher-power part built on the Blackwell architecture, with a 1000 W TDP, 180 GB of HBM3e memory, and 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The H20 is the more modest Hopper-based module, running at 500 W TDP, equipped with 96 GB of HBM3, and delivering 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The B200 SXM6 carries a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the H20 has no recorded launch MSRP.

For compute-heavy workloads that demand maximum memory capacity and the highest FP32 rates, the B200 SXM6 is the clear choice from the data. Its 180 GB memory allocation is nearly double the H20's 96 GB, and its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 output is over 75% higher than the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS. The H20, conversely, fits deployments where power draw and thermal envelope matter more, as its 500 W TDP is exactly half the B200's 1000 W requirement. The H20 also offers a higher FP16 rate of 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to the B200's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1), which makes it attractive for mixed-precision workflows that prioritize FP16 throughput over FP32.

The percentile data shows both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with no benchmark scores recorded. This means the database currently holds no measured performance results for either module, so the analysis rests entirely on the specification sheet. Buyers should weigh the B200's raw capability against the H20's efficiency profile, but the B200 SXM6 is the undisputed performance leader by every recorded metric except FP16 throughput and pixel rate.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, while the H20 uses the GH100 chip from the Hopper architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there. The B200's GB100 die is substantially larger at 1628 mm² compared to the H20's 814 mm², and it packs 208,000 million transistors versus the H20's 80,000 million. Transistor density also favors the B200 at 127.8M per mm² against the H20's 98.3M per mm², indicating a denser design despite the same process node.

The B200 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, while the H20 is part of the Server Hopper (Hxx) line. Their predecessor-successor relationships reflect this generational split: the B200's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin, whereas the H20's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. The H20's release date of 2024-01-31 precedes the B200's 2024-10-31, placing the H20 earlier in the product cycle.

Feature-level differences are stark. The B200 carries 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores, while the H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 312 tensor cores. Both parts have 24 ROPs, so pixel output is similar, but the texture and compute resources are heavily skewed toward the B200. The B200's texture rate reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus the H20's 617.8 GTexel/s, and its FP32 output is 69.34 TFLOPS against 39.54 TFLOPS. The B200's pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s is slightly lower than the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s, a rare reversal driven by the H20's higher boost clock.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, yielding 4.03 TB/s. The B200's memory bandwidth is more than double the H20's, which directly impacts large-model inference and training workloads. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 6.0 x16 on the B200 versus PCIe 5.0 x16 on the H20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No recorded benchmark scores exist in the database for either the B200 SXM6 or the H20, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Consequently, the wins and losses must be derived from the specification fields. The B200 wins decisively on FP32 compute: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS, a margin of roughly 75%. Texture rate also favors the B200 at 1,083.4 GTexel/s against 617.8 GTexel/s, a 75% advantage. Memory bandwidth is the largest single gap, with the B200's 8.19 TB/s over twice the H20's 4.03 TB/s.

The H20 counters in two specific areas. Its FP16 output of 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the B200's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning the H20 delivers higher raw FP16 throughput when using the 2:1 ratio. The H20 also has a higher pixel rate at 47.52 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s, driven by its boost clock of 1980 MHz compared to the B200's 1830 MHz. The H20's base clock of 1830 MHz is far higher than the B200's 120 MHz base, but the B200's boost clock closes much of that gap.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The B200 lists a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz, while the H20 lists a base of 1830 MHz and a boost of 1980 MHz. The B200's low base clock suggests a wide dynamic range, but the boost clock is the relevant figure for sustained workloads. Memory clocks also diverge: the B200 runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) while the H20 runs at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective), reinforcing the bandwidth gap.

Specification Differences

The two modules differ across nearly every recorded specification. The B200 uses the GB100 chip on Blackwell, while the H20 uses the GH100 chip on Hopper. Transistor count: 208,000 million for the B200 versus 80,000 million for the H20. Die size: 1628 mm² against 814 mm². Transistor density: 127.8M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores; the H20 has 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 312 tensor cores. Both have 24 ROPs.

Memory: the B200 has 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth; the H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s. Clocks: the B200 runs at 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost; the H20 runs at 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost. Memory clock: 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the B200 versus 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for the H20. FP32: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16: 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate: 43.92 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s.

Power and connectivity: the B200 has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W; the H20 has a 500 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 900 W. Both use SXM Module slot width and have no display outputs. The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16; the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Release dates: the B200 launched on 2024-10-31, the H20 on 2024-01-31. The B200 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the H20 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both parts are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from its 8192-bit HBM3e interface, more than double the H20's 4.03 TB/s from its 6144-bit HBM3 interface.

Q: How do the FP32 compute rates compare?

A: The B200 SXM6 achieves 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, while the H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS FP32. The B200 is approximately 75% faster in FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the H20 have any compute advantage over the B200?

A: Yes, the H20's FP16 rate of 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the B200's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). The H20 also has a higher pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each module?

A: The B200 SXM6 has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The H20 has a 500 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 900 W.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e, while the H20 has 96 GB of HBM3. The B200 offers nearly double the memory capacity.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The B200 SXM6 uses the Blackwell architecture with the GB100 chip, while the H20 uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins in scenarios that demand maximum memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 180 GB of HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth support large-scale model training and inference where the dataset or model weights exceed the H20's 96 GB allocation. The B200 also wins on FP32 compute, delivering 69.34 TFLOPS versus the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS, making it the superior choice for FP32-heavy workloads such as scientific simulations or high-precision numerical processing. Its 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 592 tensor cores further cement its lead in texture-bound and tensor-heavy operations. The B200's PCIe 6.0 x16 interface also provides a newer, wider data path than the H20's PCIe 5.0 x16.

The H20 wins where power efficiency and FP16 throughput take priority. Its 500 W TDP is half the B200's 1000 W, and its suggested PSU of 900 W is lower than the B200's 1400 W, making it a better fit for power-constrained server racks or facilities with limited cooling. The H20's FP16 rate of 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the B200's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1), so mixed-precision AI workloads using FP16 can run faster on the H20 despite its smaller memory footprint. The H20's pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s also edges out the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s, giving it a slight advantage in rasterization-bound tasks, though neither part has display outputs. The H20's higher base and boost clocks, 1830 MHz and 1980 MHz respectively, contribute to its responsiveness in burst workloads.

In summary, the B200 SXM6 is the performance and capacity leader across most metrics, with double the memory, double the bandwidth, and significantly higher FP32 and texture throughput. The H20 is the efficiency and FP16 specialist, offering half the power draw and higher FP16 rates, suitable for deployments where thermal limits or power budgets are the binding constraints. The database records no benchmark scores for either part, so these conclusions derive from the specification data alone. Both modules remain in active production, and their release dates place the H20 earlier in 2024 with the B200 following later in the same year.