NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA L40S Comparison

# NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA L40S

The NVIDIA B200 is the clear performance leader in this comparison, but the data tells a more nuanced story than a simple win/loss. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the B200 outscores the L40S by 4.5% in Geekbench OpenCL, posting 345,482 points against 330,727. However, the L40S holds its own in specific architectural strengths—particularly rasterization and ray tracing—where its design priorities differ fundamentally from the B200's compute-focused Blackwell architecture. The choice between these two accelerators depends entirely on workload type, with the B200 dominating AI and high-performance computing tasks while the L40S offers superior graphics and rendering capabilities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA B200 achieves 345,482 points versus the L40S's 330,727 points. This 4.5% delta places the B200 ahead, but context from the nearest rivals list reveals the broader competitive landscape. The B200 sits 16.8% above the L40S in average benchmark score—295,763 for the L40S versus 345,482 for the B200—which amounts to a substantial 49,719-point gap. This gap is larger than the head-to-head delta suggests because the L40S's average is dragged down by its Vulkan score of 260,799, a test the B200 does not appear in.

The B200's OpenCL score of 345,482 places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, meaning no other GPU in the database scores higher. The L40S, by contrast, sits at the 99th percentile with an average of 295,763. Looking at the rival comparisons, the B200 leads the AMD Instinct MI300X by 8.6% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 3.2%, while trailing only the newer NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6%. The L40S, meanwhile, leads the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 3% and the NVIDIA L40 by 4.1%, but falls 7% behind the MI300X and 11.7% behind the H200 NVL.

The FP32 compute figures show an interesting inversion: the L40S delivers 91.61 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 23% higher than the B200's 74.45 TFLOPS. However, in FP16 the B200 completely transforms the picture, delivering 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1 ratio) versus the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This 13x advantage in FP16 throughput is the defining performance characteristic separating these two cards, and it explains why the B200 dominates in AI training workloads despite losing the FP32 battle.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA B200, with an average benchmark score of 345,482, which is 16.8% higher than the L40S's 295,763 average.

Q: How do the two cards compare in ray tracing hardware?

A: The L40S includes 142 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the B200's specification lists no RT core count. This indicates the L40S is designed to handle ray-traced graphics workloads that the B200 does not target.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The B200 features 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, while the L40S has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus. The B200's memory bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s is 4.7x higher than the L40S's 864.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has better graphics API support?

A: The L40S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a). The B200 has no display outputs and no listed graphics API support.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the L40S has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The L40S is a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin power connector, whereas the B200 is an SXM module.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The B200 is listed as "Active" production status, while the L40S is marked "End-of-life" with a release date of 2022-10-12.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two NVIDIA accelerators is stark. The B200 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 104,000 million transistors. The L40S uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, also on TSMC's 5 nm process, but with 76,300 million transistors and a die size of 609 mm². This transistor count difference—27,700 million more in the B200—reflects the B200's focus on massive compute throughput rather than graphics features.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The B200 has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 1965 MHz, while the L40S runs at 1110 MHz base and 2520 MHz boost. The L40S's higher clocks benefit single-threaded and graphics workloads, while the B200's lower clocks but vastly wider architecture (18,944 shading units versus 18,176) enable higher aggregate throughput in parallel compute tasks.

The memory subsystems could not be more different. The B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The L40S uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B200's effective memory clock of 8 Gbps versus the L40S's 18 Gbps shows how HBM achieves far higher bandwidth through an extremely wide bus rather than high clock speeds.

Shader configuration diverges significantly: the B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs, while the L40S has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The B200's paltry ROP count (24 versus 192) explains its pixel rate of 47.16 GPixel/s versus the L40S's 483.8 GPixel/s—a 10.3x difference. Texture rates favor the L40S as well: 1,431.4 GTexel/s versus 1,163.3 GTexel/s. These figures confirm that the B200 is not designed for rasterized graphics output.

Tensor core counts are 592 for the B200 and 568 for the L40S, but the B200's FP16 throughput of 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1 ratio) versus the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) shows the B200's tensor cores are vastly more efficient at reduced precision. The B200 also supports PCIe 5.0 x16 while the L40S uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the interconnect bandwidth for data transfer.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the NVIDIA B200 is the superior choice for AI training, deep learning inference, and high-performance computing workloads that leverage FP16 or lower precision. Its 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance, 90 GB of HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, and 100th percentile benchmark standing make it the dominant accelerator in its class. The L40S, meanwhile, is the correct choice for graphics-intensive workloads, ray tracing, and applications requiring display output, given its 142 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and display connectors.

The B200's 16.8% average benchmark advantage over the L40S, combined with its superior memory capacity and bandwidth, makes it the unequivocal winner for compute-dense tasks. However, the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS FP32 performance—23% higher than the B200—and its 10.3x advantage in pixel rate demonstrate that for traditional graphics rendering, the L40S is not merely competitive but clearly superior. The L40S's end-of-life status and the B200's active production status further reinforce that NVIDIA is steering new deployments toward the Blackwell architecture.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA B200 | NVIDIA L40S |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Blackwell | Ada Lovelace |

| Chip | GB100 | AD102 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 76,300 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 609 mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1110 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 2520 MHz |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 48 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 4096 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 864.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 18,176 |

| TMUs | 592 | 568 |

| ROPs | 24 | 192 |

| RT Cores | Not specified | 142 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 568 |

| FP32 Performance | 74.45 TFLOPS | 91.61 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| API Support | Not specified | DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA B200 wins in AI and compute workloads. The 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 performance dwarfs the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS, making the B200 the clear choice for large language model training, neural network inference, and scientific computing that relies on reduced precision. The 90 GB HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth provides 42 GB more capacity and 4.7x more bandwidth than the L40S, enabling larger datasets and models to reside on-card. The B200's 100th percentile standing and its 16.8% average benchmark advantage confirm its top-tier compute status.

NVIDIA L40S wins in graphics and rendering workloads. The 142 RT cores, 192 ROPs, and 483.8 GPixel/s pixel rate make it the only viable option for ray-traced rendering. The 91.61 TFLOPS FP32 performance exceeds the B200's 74.45 TFLOPS by 23%, benefiting single-precision compute tasks like physics simulation and post-processing. The L40S's display outputs and graphics API support enable direct workstation use, while the B200 has no display capability whatsoever. The L40S's 300 W TDP and dual-slot form factor also offer deployment flexibility that the B200's 1000 W SXM module cannot match.

The L40S wins on efficiency for graphics tasks. Its 2520 MHz boost clock and 300 W power envelope deliver strong performance per watt for rendering, whereas the B200's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU demand substantially more infrastructure. The L40S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, covering the full modern graphics API stack, while the B200 lists no API support at all. For any workload requiring visual output or real-time graphics, the L40S is the only functional choice between these two accelerators.