NVIDIA L40S vs NVIDIA RTX 6000D Comparison

NVIDIA’s L40S and RTX 6000D represent two distinct generations of professional compute, separated by a major architectural leap. The data shows a clear but nuanced picture: the RTX 6000D wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, yet the L40S posts a higher average benchmark score and sits in a higher performance percentile. This comparison reveals that generational advantage does not automatically translate to every metric, and the choice between them depends heavily on workload priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA RTX 6000D scores 388,405, while the NVIDIA L40S scores 330,727. This translates to a 14.8% advantage for the RTX 6000D, a substantial margin that highlights the raw compute advantage of the newer Blackwell architecture. This is not a marginal win; it is a significant generational leap in raw throughput for this specific API.

However, the broader benchmark picture complicates this narrative. The L40S achieves an average benchmark score of 295,763 across all its tested workloads, while the RTX 6000D’s average is just 195,964. This is a dramatic reversal. The L40S’s average is 50.9% higher than the RTX 6000D’s average, suggesting that in the aggregate of all tests, the older card is far more consistent and powerful. This discrepancy is likely due to the fact that the RTX 6000D’s average is pulled down by its single low score in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores just 3,522. This indicates that the RTX 6000D is a specialized compute card, not a general-purpose graphics card, while the L40S appears more balanced.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides further context. The L40S’s average score of 295,763 places it 3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237) and 4.1% ahead of the NVIDIA L40 (284,111). It also outperforms the AMD Instinct MI300X by 7% (which scores 317,994). However, the L40S trails the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 11.7%, as that card scores 334,891. The RTX 6000D’s average of 195,964 is much closer to older data center parts: it is only 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB (194,415) and 4.7% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB (187,147). Yet, it falls 5.4% behind the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB (207,124) and is 6.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation (184,664). These rival comparisons show that while the RTX 6000D wins the single OpenCL test, its overall average aligns more with previous-generation accelerators, whereas the L40S sits firmly in a higher tier of average performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L40S has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 295,763, compared to the NVIDIA RTX 6000D’s average of 195,964.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 6000D in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 6000D scores 388,405 versus the L40S’s 330,727, making it 14.8% faster in that specific test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher performance percentile ranking?

A: The L40S ranks in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 6000D ranks in the 98th percentile.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The L40S features 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 6000D features 84 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 448-bit bus, providing 1.40 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The L40S has a higher boost clock of 2520 MHz, while the RTX 6000D has a boost clock of 2430 MHz.

Q: What are the TDPs of the two cards?

A: The L40S has a TDP of 300 W, while the RTX 6000D has a TDP of 600 W.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The L40S uses the AD102 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, while the RTX 6000D uses the GB202 chip based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. This is a generational shift from "Server Ada (Lxx)" to "Blackwell PRO W (x000)". Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node, but the chips themselves differ significantly in scale. The AD102 contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The GB202 is a much larger chip, containing 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 122.9M per mm². This shows that Blackwell scaled up the physical size and raw transistor count substantially.

Core configurations also diverge. The RTX 6000D has 19,968 shading units, 624 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, compared to the L40S’s 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The RTX 6000D also has more dedicated compute hardware: 156 RT cores and 624 tensor cores, versus 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores on the L40S. This results in higher theoretical peak rates for the RTX 6000D in FP32 (97.04 TFLOPS) and FP16 (97.04 TFLOPS) compared to the L40S’s 91.61 TFLOPS for both. The pixel rate is also slightly higher on the RTX 6000D at 466.6 GPixel/s versus 483.8 GPixel/s on the L40S, though the texture rate is higher on the RTX 6000D at 1,516.3 GTexel/s versus 1,431.4 GTexel/s on the L40S.

Memory is another major differentiator. The L40S uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, while the RTX 6000D uses 84 GB of GDDR7 on a wider 448-bit bus. This gives the RTX 6000D a massive bandwidth advantage at 1.40 TB/s, compared to the L40S’s 864.0 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the L40S running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and the RTX 6000D at 1560 MHz (25 Gbps effective). The RTX 6000D also supports a newer PCIe interface (PCIe 5.0 x16) compared to the L40S’s PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well, with the L40S offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX 6000D offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1b.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the choice between these two GPUs depends on whether the priority is raw single-workload compute performance or consistent average performance. The RTX 6000D is the clear winner in the Geekbench OpenCL test, delivering a 14.8% higher score. If the primary workload is similar to that OpenCL test, the RTX 6000D is the stronger pick. Its higher FP32 and FP16 TFLOPS, larger memory pool (84 GB vs 48 GB), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (1.40 TB/s vs 864.0 GB/s) all point to it being the more powerful compute engine for modern, memory-intensive tasks.

However, the L40S’s average benchmark score is far superior, at 295,763 versus 195,964. This indicates that across a broader set of tasks, the L40S is more consistently performant and holds a higher percentile ranking (99th vs 98th). The L40S also operates at a much lower TDP (300 W vs 600 W), making it a more power-efficient solution for sustained workloads. For users who prioritize a well-rounded, high-performing accelerator that excels in a variety of scenarios without the extreme power draw, the L40S is the logical choice. The RTX 6000D, despite its architectural advantages, appears to be a specialized tool that may not deliver in all scenarios, as evidenced by its low 3DMark score pulling down its average.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The most obvious difference is in memory: the L40S has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the RTX 6000D has 84 GB of GDDR7. This also includes the bus width (384-bit vs 448-bit) and memory bandwidth (864.0 GB/s vs 1.40 TB/s). The chip is different (AD102 vs GB202), as is the architecture (Ada Lovelace vs Blackwell 2.0) and the generation (Server Ada vs Blackwell PRO W). The transistor count is higher on the RTX 6000D (92,200 million vs 76,300 million), as is the die size (750 mm² vs 609 mm²). Clock speeds vary, with the L40S having a higher boost clock (2520 MHz vs 2430 MHz) but the RTX 6000D having a higher base clock (1992 MHz vs 1110 MHz). The RTX 6000D has more shading units (19968 vs 18176), TMUs (624 vs 568), RT cores (156 vs 142), and tensor cores (624 vs 568). The L40S has a higher pixel rate (483.8 GPixel/s vs 466.6 GPixel/s) but the RTX 6000D has a higher texture rate (1,516.3 GTexel/s vs 1,431.4 GTexel/s). The TDP is drastically different (600 W vs 300 W), and the suggested PSU is also higher for the RTX 6000D (1000 W vs 700 W). The bus interface is newer on the RTX 6000D (PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16). The RTX 6000D is larger (304 mm vs 267 mm in length) and taller (137 mm vs 111 mm). The L40S is listed as end-of-life, while the RTX 6000D is active. The RTX 6000D has a launch MSRP of 8,565 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 6000D wins in scenarios that demand maximum compute throughput per operation. Its 14.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its higher FP32 and FP16 TFLOPS (97.04 vs 91.61), makes it the superior choice for raw number-crunching tasks like high-precision simulation or AI inference where the entire GPU is dedicated to a single, massive workload. Its larger 84 GB memory pool and 1.40 TB/s bandwidth give it a clear advantage in handling extremely large datasets that would not fit in the L40S’s 48 GB frame buffer, reducing the need for memory swapping and improving efficiency in data-heavy applications like large language model training or big-data analytics.

The L40S wins in general-purpose and mixed-workload environments. Its average benchmark score of 295,763 is 50.9% higher than the RTX 6000D’s, indicating it is the more versatile and consistent performer across a range of tests. Its lower TDP of 300 W, compared to 600 W, makes it a more manageable component in power-constrained systems, potentially allowing for denser server configurations. The L40S’s higher boost clock (2520 MHz vs 2430 MHz) and higher pixel rate (483.8 GPixel/s vs 466.6 GPixel/s) also suggest it may handle graphics-related tasks better, such as rendering or visualization. For users who need a reliable, high-performance accelerator that performs well across various benchmarks without the extreme power and cooling requirements, the L40S is the stronger candidate.