NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

NVIDIA’s B200 and H200 NVL represent two distinct generations of server-class accelerators, but benchmark data shows they are far closer in raw compute than their architecture generations suggest. In the only available head-to-head benchmark, the B200 edges out the H200 NVL by a narrow margin, making the choice between them less about outright performance and more about memory capacity, power envelopes, and feature sets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark result available for comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-focused test that stresses raw throughput capabilities. In this test, the NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 points, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 points. This gives the B200 a 3.2% advantage according to the deltaPct value listed in the data. While the B200 wins the head-to-head comparison, the margin is modest — not the generational leap one might expect from a newer architecture.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these two are. The B200 sits 3.2% above the H200 NVL, but it also trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6% in average score. Meanwhile, the H200 NVL is 5.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X and 13.2% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S. The B200, for its part, leads the MI300X by 8.6% and the L40S by 16.8%. These figures show that both cards occupy the same performance tier, with the B200 holding a slight edge over the H200 NVL but both being firmly outclassed by the newer B300.

The B200’s victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test can be attributed to its higher FP32 throughput of 74.45 TFLOPS compared to the H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS — a 23% advantage in theoretical single-precision compute. Similarly, the B200’s texture rate of 1,163.3 GTexel/s outpaces the H200 NVL’s 942.5 GTexel/s. However, raw compute is only part of the story. The H200 NVL counters with higher memory bandwidth at 4.89 TB/s versus the B200’s 4.10 TB/s, and substantially more memory capacity at 141 GB versus 90 GB. These memory advantages could prove decisive in workloads that are bandwidth-bound or require large model residency.

Clock speeds tell an interesting tale. The H200 NVL has a higher base clock of 1365 MHz versus the B200’s 700 MHz, but the B200 boosts higher at 1965 MHz versus 1785 MHz. This suggests the B200 is designed to ramp aggressively under load, while the H200 NVL runs at a more sustained pace. The B200’s lower base clock likely reflects its much higher thermal design power of 1000 W, allowing it to push boost clocks harder when cooling permits.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy, but the margins are slim. The B200 wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 3.2%, and it leads in FP32 compute, texture rate, and pixel rate. For workloads that are purely compute-bound and where the accelerator can sustain boost clocks, the B200 is the faster card. Its 74.45 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is a substantial step up from the H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS, and its 1,191.2 TFLOPS of FP16 (16:1) performance dwarfs the H200 NVL’s 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) — a 10x advantage in raw FP16 tensor throughput, though the ratios differ significantly and should be interpreted with caution.

However, the H200 NVL is not without its own strengths. Its 141 GB of HBM3e memory is 56.7% larger than the B200’s 90 GB, and its 4.89 TB/s bandwidth is 19.3% higher. For AI inference workloads that require holding large models in memory, or for training scenarios that benefit from larger batch sizes, the H200 NVL’s memory advantage could be decisive. The H200 NVL also consumes 40% less power at 600 W versus 1000 W, and it can be configured as a dual-slot card, whereas the B200 is an SXM module.

The percentile data shows both cards are in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are at the very top of the performance distribution. The choice between them depends on the specific workload profile. Compute-dense applications that can tolerate high power draw will favor the B200. Memory-hungry applications or deployments with power constraints will favor the H200 NVL. The B300 SXM6 AC, which leads both by 6.6% and 9.4% respectively, is the clear performance leader, but it is not part of this head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 points, which is 3.2% higher than the NVIDIA H200 NVL’s 334,891 points. The B200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark comparison.

Q: How does the B200 compare to the H200 NVL in memory capacity?

A: The H200 NVL has significantly more memory at 141 GB of HBM3e, compared to the B200’s 90 GB of HBM3e. This represents a 56.7% capacity advantage for the H200 NVL.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The B200 has a thermal design power of 1000 W, while the H200 NVL is rated at 600 W. The H200 NVL draws 40% less power, and its suggested power supply is 1000 W versus 1400 W for the B200.

Q: Which card offers higher memory bandwidth?

A: The H200 NVL provides 4.89 TB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 19.3% higher than the B200’s 4.10 TB/s. The H200 NVL also uses a wider 6144-bit memory bus versus the B200’s 4096-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: The B200 delivers 74.45 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 23.4% higher than the H200 NVL’s 60.32 TFLOPS. This is a substantial advantage for the B200 in single-precision workloads.

Q: Is the H200 NVL released while the B200 has no release date listed?

A: Yes, the H200 NVL has a release date of November 17, 2024, while the B200’s release date is not listed in the data. Both cards are currently marked as active in production status.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every key specification. The B200 uses the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture, while the H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip with Hopper architecture. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the B200 packs 104,000 million transistors compared to the H200 NVL’s 80,000 million — a 30% advantage in transistor count. The H200 NVL has a listed die size of 814 mm² and a transistor density of 98.3M per mm², while the B200’s die size and density are not specified.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, while the H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth. The B200’s memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the H200 NVL runs at 1593 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective.

Compute resources also differ. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores, while the H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 528 tensor cores. The B200 leads in pixel rate at 47.16 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s, and in texture rate at 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus 942.5 GTexel/s. The B200’s FP16 performance is listed at 1,191.2 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio, while the H200 NVL achieves 120.6 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The B200 is an SXM module with a 1000 W TDP and a suggested 1400 W power supply, while the H200 NVL is a dual-slot card with a 600 W TDP, an 8-pin EPS power connector, and a suggested 1000 W power supply. The H200 NVL has physical dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the B200’s dimensions are not listed. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and have no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is significant, even though benchmark results are close. The B200 is built on the Blackwell architecture, which is the successor to the Hopper architecture used in the H200 NVL. The B200’s generation is listed as “Server Blackwell (Bxx),” while the H200 NVL is from the “Server Hopper (Hxx)” generation. In the product lineage, the H200 NVL’s predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell — meaning the B200 is the direct architectural successor to the H200 NVL.

Transistor budgets reflect the architectural leap. The B200 integrates 104,000 million transistors, a 30% increase over the H200 NVL’s 80,000 million. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the B200’s higher transistor count indicates a denser design, though the B200’s die size is not disclosed. The H200 NVL’s die size is 814 mm² with a density of 98.3M transistors per mm².

Memory architecture differs in both capacity and bus width. The B200 uses a 4096-bit memory bus, which is narrower than the H200 NVL’s 6144-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the B200 achieves 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, while the H200 NVL reaches 4.89 TB/s. The B200’s memory operates at a higher effective speed of 8 Gbps versus 6.4 Gbps on the H200 NVL, which partially compensates for the narrower bus.

Tensor core configurations also differ. The B200 has 592 tensor cores compared to the H200 NVL’s 528, a 12.1% increase. The FP16 performance figures highlight a major architectural divergence: the B200 lists 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, while the H200 NVL lists 120.6 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This suggests the B200’s tensor cores are optimized for much higher throughput in certain precision modes, though the different ratios make direct comparison complex.

Clock behavior differs notably. The H200 NVL has a higher base clock at 1365 MHz, while the B200 starts at 700 MHz but boosts to 1965 MHz, exceeding the H200 NVL’s 1785 MHz boost. The B200’s lower base clock and higher boost clock, combined with its 1000 W TDP, indicate a design that aggressively ramps clocks under load. The H200 NVL’s more modest 600 W TDP and higher base clock suggest a more consistent, power-efficient operating profile.