NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC vs NVIDIA H20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive performance gap between these two server accelerators. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC records an OpenCL score of 369,831, placing it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs tracked. The NVIDIA H20 has no recorded benchmark score in the database, leaving its average benchmark score at zero and placing it in the 50th percentile. This absence of measured data means direct head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the B300's recorded results and the relative positioning of its nearest rivals.

The B300 SXM6 AC sits 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, which posts an average score of 345,482. It extends that lead to 10.4% over the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891, then 16.3% over the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994, and finally 25% over the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763. These deltas establish the B300 as the clear performance leader in its immediate competitive set. The H20, lacking any benchmark entries, cannot be positioned against these rivals with recorded data.

What the numbers indicate is that the B300 delivers a substantial compute advantage in the OpenCL workload. A 7% margin over the B200 represents a meaningful generational uplift, while the 25% gap over the L40S shows how far the B300 separates itself from lower-tier server accelerators. The H20's complete absence from the benchmark results means no measured comparison can be made, but its percentile ranking at 50% against all GPUs suggests it occupies a mid-pack position, far below the B300's perfect percentile score.

FAQ

Q: What is the OpenCL benchmark score for the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC records an OpenCL score of 369,831, which places it in the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA H20 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The H20 has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: How does the B300 SXM6 AC compare to the NVIDIA B200?

A: The B300 is 7% ahead of the B200 in average benchmark score, with the B200 posting 345,482 against the B300's 369,831.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The H20 uses 96 GB of HBM3 memory with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher boost clock speeds?

A: The H20 has a higher boost clock at 1980 MHz compared to the B300's 2032 MHz boost clock, though the B300's base clock is lower at 1665 MHz versus the H20's 1830 MHz base clock.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The B300's GB110 chip contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die. The H20's GH100 chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die.

The Verdict

The recorded data points decisively toward the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC for any workload requiring maximum compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 369,831 places it at the absolute top of the database, and its margins over the nearest rivals confirm its dominance. The B200 trails by 7%, the H200 NVL by 10.4%, the MI300X by 16.3%, and the L40S by 25%. For applications that depend on raw benchmark performance, the B300 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA H20 presents a different profile. With no recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm its actual performance level. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs indicates it sits in the middle of the distribution, but without measured results, any performance claim remains unverified. The H20's lower power envelope and smaller memory footprint suggest it targets a different segment, but the absence of data prevents a definitive verdict on its compute capabilities.

For users who prioritize verified performance and maximum throughput, the B300 SXM6 AC is the only option supported by recorded evidence. The H20's role remains unclear from the data alone, as its benchmark absence leaves its competitive position undefined.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every major specification category. The B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip under the Blackwell Ultra architecture, while the H20 uses the GH100 chip under the Hopper architecture. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the B300's die measures 1628 mm² versus the H20's 814 mm², exactly double the area. Transistor counts follow the same pattern: 208,000 million for the B300 against 80,000 million for the H20. Transistor density also favors the B300 at 127.8M per mm² compared to 98.3M per mm² for the H20.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The H20 has a higher base clock at 1830 MHz versus 1665 MHz for the B300. The boost clocks are closer, with the B300 at 2032 MHz and the H20 at 1980 MHz. Memory clocks differ substantially: the B300 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the H20 runs at 1313 MHz with 5.3 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth heavily favor the B300. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The H20 carries 96 GB of HBM3 across a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s. The B300 has three times the memory capacity and roughly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The B300 packs 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. Pixel rates are nearly identical at 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300 and 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20. Texture rates differ significantly: 1,202.9 GTexel/s for the B300 versus 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20.

Floating-point performance shows an interesting inversion. The B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS for FP32 but 79.07 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. This means the H20 actually exceeds the B300 in FP16 throughput, while the B300 doubles the H20 in FP32.

Power and interface specifications also differ. The B300 has a TDP of 1100 W with a suggested PSU of 1500 W, while the H20 has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W. The B300 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the H20 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Both are SXM modules with no display outputs. Release dates differ by about 20 months: the H20 launched on 2024-01-31, while the B300 launched on 2025-09-10.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two accelerators is fundamental. The B300 SXM6 AC belongs to the Blackwell Ultra generation under the Server Blackwell (Bxx) family, built on the GB110 chip. The H20 belongs to the Hopper generation under the Server Hopper (Hxx) family, built on the GH100 chip. This generational gap explains many of the specification differences.

The B300's die size of 1628 mm² is exactly double the H20's 814 mm², and its transistor count of 208,000 million is 2.6 times the H20's 80,000 million. The higher transistor density of 127.8M per mm² against 98.3M per mm² indicates a more compact design on the same 5 nm process node.

Memory technology differs by one generation. The B300 uses HBM3e, while the H20 uses HBM3. This accounts for the B300's higher memory clock of 2000 MHz versus 1313 MHz, and its effective bandwidth of 8 Gbps versus 5.3 Gbps. The bus width also increases from 6144 bits on the H20 to 8192 bits on the B300.

The B300 doubles the H20 in shading units, TMUs, and tensor cores. It maintains the same ROP count at 24. The FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS on the B300 exactly doubles the H20's 39.54 TFLOPS, reflecting the doubling of compute resources. However, the H20's FP16 figure of 79.07 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio exceeds the B300's 76.99 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating different FP16 processing strategies.

The B300's predecessor is listed as Server Hopper, which aligns with the H20's generation, while its successor is Server Rubin. The H20's predecessor is Server Ada, and its successor is Server Blackwell, which is the B300's generation. This confirms the B300 as the direct successor to the Hopper line that includes the H20.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 SXM6 AC wins in every category where recorded data exists. Its benchmark score of 369,831 stands alone at the 100th percentile, and its margins over the nearest rivals confirm its dominance in measured performance. The B300's 288 GB memory capacity, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for memory-intensive and FP32-heavy workloads.

The H20's advantages are narrower and primarily specification-based. Its higher base clock of 1830 MHz versus 1665 MHz suggests better performance at low utilization. Its FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS exceeds the B300's 76.99 TFLOPS, making it potentially stronger for FP16-dominated tasks. Its lower TDP of 500 W against the B300's 1100 W means it consumes less than half the power, which could favor deployments with strict power budgets.

However, these H20 advantages come without benchmark verification. The database contains no recorded scores for the H20, so its actual performance remains unmeasured. The B300's wins are all verified through the OpenCL benchmark and its percentile ranking. For FP32 compute, memory bandwidth, and overall throughput, the data supports the B300 without qualification.

The H20's mid-pack percentile ranking at 50% suggests it belongs in a different performance tier entirely. The B300's 100th percentile places it at the very top of the database. Users requiring maximum measured performance should select the B300 SXM6 AC. Users constrained by power consumption or requiring FP16 throughput might consider the H20, but they would do so without any benchmark evidence to support that choice.