B200 192GB vs H200 141GB
Specs, price, and performance compared
Specs
▲ indicates the higher value for that spec. TDP: lower is better for density.
B200 192GB vs H200 141GB: Workload Fit
The B200 192GB is built on the GB202 architecture (Blackwell, TSMC 4NP), while the H200 141GB uses GH100 (Hopper, TSMC 4N). The B200 192GB delivers 3500 TFLOPS of FP16/BF16 throughput — 1.8× the 1979 TFLOPS of the H200 141GB. Both support FP8: the B200 192GB at 7000 TFLOPS and the H200 141GB at 3958 TFLOPS.
Memory capacity and bandwidth are the primary constraints for large language model workloads. The B200 192GB provides 192GB of HBM3e versus 141GB of HBM3e on the H200 141GB. Memory bandwidth favors the B200 192GB at 8.0 TB/s — 1.7× the 4.8 TB/s of the H200 141GB. Both support NVLink: the B200 192GB at 1800 GB/s and the H200 141GB at 900 GB/s bidirectional.
Power consumption shapes rack density and operating cost. The H200 141GB draws 700W TDP versus 1000W for the B200 192GB. On a TFLOPS-per-watt basis, the B200 192GB is the more efficient option at 1.2× the compute density of the H200 141GB, delivering 3500 TFLOPS at 1000W.
The B200 192GB is best suited for Next-gen LLM training, Ultra-large model inference, Scientific simulation. The H200 141GB targets 70B+ model inference, Memory-bound LLM serving, Large context windows. For models that exceed the smaller card's VRAM, the B200 192GB's 192GB is the deciding factor — a 192GB card can hold roughly 96B parameters at FP16 or 384B at INT4.
Workload Cost Comparison
Total job cost = observed median $/hr × GPU count × hours. Spot pricing typically 40–70% lower.
The B200 192GB costs 1.6× more than the H200 141GB at current observed median prices. The B200 192GB's 192GB VRAM (vs 141GB on the H200 141GB) allows larger models and batch sizes without offloading, which commands a premium in the cloud market. Memory bandwidth is 1.7× higher on the B200 192GB (8000 GB/s vs 4800 GB/s), which directly improves token throughput for memory-bound LLM inference.
Based on observed on-demand median prices. Actual cost depends on provider, region, and availability.
Strengths & Weaknesses
- More VRAM than the H200 141GB (192GB vs 141GB)
- Higher memory bandwidth (8000 GB/s vs 4800 GB/s on the H200 141GB)
- 1.8× the FP16 compute throughput of the H200 141GB (3500 vs 1979 TFLOPS)
- Higher power draw at 1000W vs 700W on the H200 141GB
- Lower power draw at 700W vs 1000W — fits more cards per rack
- Less VRAM than the B200 192GB (141GB vs 192GB)
- Lower memory bandwidth than the B200 192GB (4800 GB/s vs 8000 GB/s)
- Lower FP16 throughput than the B200 192GB (1979 vs 3500 TFLOPS)
- Next-gen LLM training
- Ultra-large model inference
- Scientific simulation
- Very limited cloud availability — still ramping supply
- Extremely high hourly cost vs H100/H200
- Requires NVLink 5.0 infrastructure for multi-GPU setups
- 70B+ model inference
- Memory-bound LLM serving
- Large context windows
- Premium pricing over H100 — ~40–60% higher hourly cost
- Limited availability vs H100 — fewer providers offer it
- Same compute as H100 — only memory bandwidth improvement