NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA L40 Comparison

The NVIDIA B200 and NVIDIA L40 represent two distinct approaches to server acceleration, with the B200 built on the Blackwell architecture for maximum compute density and the L40 on Ada Lovelace for broader workload flexibility. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, but the surrounding specifications and rival positioning reveal a clear separation in intended use cases. The B200 delivers a 4.4% win in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 345,482 against the L40’s 330,926, yet the L40 counters with its own strengths in rendering, API support, and power efficiency that the raw compute score does not capture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA B200 outscores the NVIDIA L40 by 4.4%. The B200’s score of 345,482 places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the L40’s 330,926 places it in the 99th percentile. This narrow margin is notable given the architectural gulf between the two—the B200 is a 1000 W SXM module designed for dense compute, while the L40 is a 300 W dual-slot card. The data suggests that in OpenCL workloads, the B200’s massive memory bandwidth and tensor core count translate into a measurable, though not overwhelming, advantage.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The B200 sits 3.2% above the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8.6% above the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), but trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6% (369,831). The L40, by contrast, is 1.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) and 3.9% behind the NVIDIA L40S (295,763), while leading the NVIDIA L20 by 13.1% (251,147) and trailing the AMD Instinct MI300X by 10.7%. These deltas indicate that the B200’s OpenCL lead over the L40 is consistent with its higher-tier positioning, but the L40’s closer competition with the RTX 6000 Ada suggests it remains competitive within its own generation.

The win tally is one for the B200 and zero for the L40, but this single-data-point picture is incomplete. The L40’s Vulkan score of 237,295, which has no B200 counterpart, hints that the L40’s feature set—including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support—enables workloads the B200 cannot address. The B200 lists no display outputs and no graphics API support, making it a pure compute accelerator, whereas the L40’s four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and full API stack position it for visualization tasks where OpenCL performance is only one factor.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins decisively in raw compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 90 GB of HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the L40’s 48 GB of GDDR6 at 864.0 GB/s—a 4.7x bandwidth advantage that matters for large dataset processing. The B200’s FP32 output of 74.45 TFLOPS is lower than the L40’s 90.52 TFLOPS, but its FP16 performance of 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1 ratio) versus the L40’s 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) shows where the B200’s tensor cores excel: mixed-precision AI training and inference. The B200’s 592 tensor cores match the L40’s count, but the Blackwell architecture’s 16:1 FP16 ratio indicates a design optimized for matrix operations rather than general-purpose compute.

The L40 wins in graphics and rendering-oriented workloads. Its 142 ray tracing cores, 192 ROPs, and 478.1 GPixel/s pixel rate far exceed the B200’s 24 ROPs and 47.16 GPixel/s. The L40’s texture rate of 1,414.3 GTexel/s also tops the B200’s 1,163.3 GTexel/s. For real-time visualization, the L40’s dual-slot form factor, 267 mm length, and display outputs make it a practical choice for workstations, while the B200’s SXM module with no outputs requires a server chassis. The L40’s 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU also contrast sharply with the B200’s 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU, making the L40 far easier to deploy in existing infrastructure.

Architecture Differences

The B200 uses the GB100 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process with 104,000 million transistors, while the L40 uses the AD102 chip on the same 5 nm node but with 76,300 million transistors. The B200’s die size is not listed in the data, but the L40’s die measures 609 mm² with a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The B200’s architecture is Blackwell, generation Server Blackwell (Bxx), whereas the L40 is Ada Lovelace, generation Server Ada (Lxx). This generational split explains the B200’s focus on tensor throughput: its 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance at a 16:1 ratio versus the L40’s 1:1 ratio indicates a fundamentally different compute pipeline.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The B200 uses HBM3e with a 4096-bit bus, enabling 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, while the L40 uses GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus at 864.0 GB/s. The B200’s 90 GB capacity is nearly double the L40’s 48 GB. Clock speeds also differ: the B200 boosts to 1965 MHz from a 700 MHz base, while the L40 boosts to 2490 MHz from a 735 MHz base. The L40’s higher boost clock contributes to its superior pixel and texture rates, despite having fewer shading units (18,176 vs 18,944) and TMUs (568 vs 592). The B200’s lower clock but larger memory subsystem suggests a design that prioritizes bandwidth-bound workloads over latency-sensitive graphics.

The L40 includes 142 ray tracing cores, which the B200 lacks entirely. The B200 also lists no APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan), while the L40 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200’s bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, double the L40’s PCIe 4.0 x16 bandwidth. Production status differs: the B200 is Active, while the L40 is End-of-life. The L40’s release date of 2022-10-12 places it in the Server Ada generation, with its predecessor Server Ampere and successor Server Hopper; the B200’s predecessor is Server Hopper and successor Server Rubin, confirming the B200 as the newer product.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. Memory size: the B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e versus the L40’s 48 GB of GDDR6. Memory bus width: 4096-bit versus 384-bit. Memory bandwidth: 4.10 TB/s versus 864.0 GB/s. Clock speeds: the B200’s base is 700 MHz and boost is 1965 MHz, while the L40’s base is 735 MHz and boost is 2490 MHz. Memory clocks: the B200 runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus the L40’s 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Shading units: 18,944 versus 18,176. TMUs: 592 versus 568. ROPs: 24 versus 192. Ray tracing cores: none versus 142. Tensor cores: 592 for both, but FP16 throughput differs dramatically: 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) versus 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1). FP32: 74.45 TFLOPS versus 90.52 TFLOPS.

Pixel rate: 47.16 GPixel/s versus 478.1 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus 1,414.3 GTexel/s. TDP: 1000 W versus 300 W. Slot width: SXM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: none listed for the B200 versus 1x 16-pin for the L40. Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 700 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: no outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. APIs: none versus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions: the L40 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the B200’s dimensions are not listed. Transistors: 104,000 million versus 76,300 million. Die size: not listed for the B200 versus 609 mm² for the L40. The L40 also has a transistor density figure of 125.3M / mm², which the B200 lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA L40, with 90.52 TFLOPS, exceeds the B200’s 74.45 TFLOPS. This means the L40 is better suited for general-purpose compute tasks that rely on standard precision.

Q: Why does the B200 have such a high FP16 score?

A: The B200 achieves 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 at a 16:1 ratio, whereas the L40 achieves 90.52 TFLOPS at 1:1. The 16:1 ratio indicates the B200’s tensor cores are heavily optimized for matrix operations, making it a specialist for AI workloads rather than a general-purpose GPU.

Q: Can the L40 be used for real-time rendering?

A: Yes. The L40 includes 142 ray tracing cores, 192 ROPs, and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, plus support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 has no display outputs and no listed graphics APIs.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e with a 4096-bit bus and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The L40 has 48 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B200 provides 4.7x more bandwidth and nearly double the capacity.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The B200 has a 1000 W TDP and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the L40 has a 300 W TDP and a 700 W suggested PSU. The L40’s lower power draw makes it compatible with standard workstation power supplies.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The B200 is in the Server Blackwell generation with Active production status and a successor named Server Rubin. The L40 is in the Server Ada generation, released 2022-10-12, with End-of-life production status and a successor of Server Hopper.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: choose the NVIDIA B200 for AI training and inference workloads that demand massive memory bandwidth and tensor throughput. Its 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, 90 GB capacity, and 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance are unmatched by the L40, and its 4.4% OpenCL lead over the L40 confirms its compute superiority. The B200’s 1000 W TDP and SXM form factor indicate a server-only deployment, but for users prioritizing raw neural network performance, the B200’s 16:1 FP16 ratio is the decisive factor.

Choose the NVIDIA L40 for graphics, visualization, and rendering tasks. Its 142 ray tracing cores, 192 ROPs, and 478.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, combined with display outputs and full API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), make it a versatile workstation card. The L40’s higher boost clock (2490 MHz) and FP32 output (90.52 TFLOPS) also benefit traditional compute, while its 300 W TDP and dual-slot design allow for easier integration. The L40’s End-of-life status is a caveat, but its 99th percentile ranking and close competition with the RTX 6000 Ada Generation (1.1% behind) show it remains capable. The B200 is the compute specialist; the L40 is the all-rounder with graphics capability. The benchmark data supports both choices depending on whether the workload is matrix-heavy or pixel-heavy.