NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two accelerators is asymmetrical: the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL carries a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible from the measured results alone. However, the H200 NVL’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA B200, which is the closest sibling to the B200 SXM6 in the database. That entry shows the B200 averaging 345,482 in the same test, a delta of -3.1% relative to the H200 NVL. In other words, the H200 NVL trails the B200 by 3.1%, or roughly 10,591 points, in this specific OpenCL workload.

The H200 NVL’s nearest rival data also provides context beyond the B200. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, putting the H200 NVL 5.3% ahead of that part. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC leads with 369,831, meaning the H200 NVL sits 9.4% behind that newer accelerator. The NVIDIA L40S trails at 295,763, leaving the H200 NVL 13.2% ahead. These deltas show that the H200 NVL occupies a middle position among its immediate competitors in the database: faster than the MI300X and L40S, slower than the B300 SXM6 AC, and slightly slower than the B200.

Because the B200 SXM6 has no measured benchmark scores, its percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs is based on the database’s default assignment for parts without recorded results. The H200 NVL, by contrast, holds a 100th percentile rank, reflecting its single strong OpenCL score. The data does not support a claim that the B200 SXM6 is slower; it only indicates that no benchmark results are recorded for that model. The H200 NVL’s average benchmark score of 334,891 is the only concrete data point for either accelerator in this section.

Where Each One Wins

The H200 NVL wins in measured performance, since it has a recorded score and the B200 SXM6 does not. Its Geekbench OpenCL result of 334,891 places it above the AMD Instinct MI300X by 5.3% and above the NVIDIA L40S by 13.2% in the same test. It also holds a 100th percentile rank across all GPUs in the database, which indicates that its single score is at the top of the recorded distribution. The H200 NVL’s win is empirical: the data contains a number, and that number is high.

The B200 SXM6 wins in theoretical specifications, based on the recorded hardware parameters. Its FP32 compute is 69.34 TFLOPS versus 60.32 TFLOPS for the H200 NVL, a 15% advantage. Its memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 4.89 TB/s, a 67% advantage. Its memory capacity is 180 GB versus 141 GB, a 28% advantage. These are not benchmark scores; they are specification values from the database, and they consistently favor the B200 SXM6. For workloads that scale with raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or memory capacity, the B200 SXM6’s specifications suggest a clear edge, even though no benchmark confirms it.

The H200 NVL has one specification win that matters for certain workloads: its FP16 performance is 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the B200 SXM6’s FP16 is 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. In mixed-precision or tensor-heavy tasks that use FP16, the H200 NVL’s recorded FP16 throughput is 74% higher. That is a notable advantage on paper, though again, no benchmark in the database verifies it.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, while the H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip built on the Hopper architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The B200 SXM6 packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The H200 NVL has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, for a density of 98.3M per mm². The B200 SXM6’s die is exactly twice the area and carries 2.6 times the transistor count.

Memory architecture also differs. The B200 SXM6 uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The H200 NVL also uses HBM3e but with a 6144-bit bus and 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 SXM6’s memory subsystem is wider and faster on paper. The H200 NVL’s memory clock is 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the B200 SXM6’s memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. Clock speeds for the cores differ as well: the B200 SXM6 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost of 1830 MHz, while the H200 NVL has a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz. The B200 SXM6’s base clock is unusually low, but its boost clock is higher.

Compute resources show a mixed picture. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 528 tensor cores. Both have 24 ROPs. The B200 SXM6’s pixel rate is 43.92 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL, a small margin. Texture rate is 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s, a 15% difference. The FP32 and FP16 ratios tell a more complex story: the B200 SXM6 runs both at 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the H200 NVL runs FP32 at 60.32 TFLOPS and FP16 at 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

The B200 SXM6 and H200 NVL differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The chip is GB100 versus GH100, architecture is Blackwell versus Hopper, and generation is Server Blackwell (Bxx) versus Server Hopper (Hxx). Transistor count is 208,000 million versus 80,000 million, die size is 1628 mm² versus 814 mm², and transistor density is 127.8M per mm² versus 98.3M per mm². Base clocks are 120 MHz versus 1365 MHz, boost clocks are 1830 MHz versus 1785 MHz, and memory clocks are 2000 MHz versus 1593 MHz.

Memory capacity is 180 GB versus 141 GB, bus width is 8192 bit versus 6144 bit, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 4.89 TB/s. Shading units are 18,944 versus 16,896, TMUs are 592 versus 528, and tensor cores are 592 versus 528. Pixel rate is 43.92 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s, texture rate is 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s, FP32 is 69.34 TFLOPS versus 60.32 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 69.34 TFLOPS versus 120.6 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The B200 SXM6 is an SXM Module, while the H200 NVL is dual-slot. The H200 NVL uses an 8-pin EPS power connector; the B200 SXM6 has no recorded power connector. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 for the B200 SXM6 and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H200 NVL. The H200 NVL has recorded dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the B200 SXM6 has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are close: the B200 SXM6 launched on 2024-10-31 and the H200 NVL on 2024-11-17. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the H200 NVL has no recorded MSRP. The B200 SXM6’s predecessor is Server Hopper and successor is Server Rubin; the H200 NVL’s predecessor is Server Ada and successor is Server Blackwell.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has a higher recorded benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

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

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

Q: Which model has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, compared to 4.89 TB/s for the NVIDIA H200 NVL.

Q: Which model has higher FP16 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL has 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 69.34 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What are the power requirements for each model?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The NVIDIA H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

Q: Do both models use the same memory type?

A: Yes, both use HBM3e, but with different capacities: 180 GB for the B200 SXM6 and 141 GB for the H200 NVL.

The Verdict

The database presents a clear split between measured and specified performance. The NVIDIA H200 NVL is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results, and that result is strong: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891, a 100th percentile rank, and a position 5.3% above the AMD Instinct MI300X and 13.2% above the NVIDIA L40S. The H200 NVL also leads in FP16 throughput at 120.6 TFLOPS, which is 74% higher than the B200 SXM6’s FP16 figure. For users who need verified OpenCL performance or mixed-precision FP16 throughput, the H200 NVL is the part with demonstrated results.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6, however, leads in nearly every raw specification that predicts heavy compute and memory workloads. Its FP32 is 15% higher at 69.34 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth is 67% higher at 8.19 TB/s. Its memory capacity is 28% higher at 180 GB. Its transistor count is 2.6 times higher, and its die is exactly twice as large. Its boost clock is higher at 1830 MHz, and its texture rate is 15% higher. The B200 SXM6 also carries a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, a figure absent for the H200 NVL.

The verdict follows the data. The H200 NVL is the choice when measured results matter, because it is the only one with a score, and that score places it at the top of the recorded percentile distribution. The B200 SXM6 is the choice when specifications matter, because its memory subsystem, FP32 compute, and capacity are categorically larger. Neither part has display outputs, and both use no standard graphics APIs, so they are strictly compute accelerators. The B200 SXM6’s higher TDP of 1000 W and PCIe 6.0 x16 interface indicate a more demanding platform, while the H200 NVL’s 600 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface fit into a more conventional server slot. The recorded data favors the H200 NVL for verified performance; the recorded specifications favor the B200 SXM6 for theoretical headroom.