B300 vs H200

The FP16 dense rating of 2250 TFLOPS on the B300 exceeds the H200 dense FP16 rating of 989 TFLOPS by more than double and produces a larger FP16 to FP32 ratio of 2250 to 75 than the H200 ratio of 989 to 67. This difference supports faster matrix operations during training workloads that rely on dense FP16 computation. Memory bandwidth of 8000 GB per second on the B300 versus 4800 GB per second on the H200 permits larger batch sizes before memory capacity limits are reached. Sparse FP16 figures follow the same pattern with the B300 at 4500 TFLOPS against the H200 at 1979 TFLOPS.

The B300 suits workloads that require the 262 GB to 288 GB VRAM range and the 2250 TFLOPS dense FP16 rating for handling models that exceed the 141 GB limit of the H200. Its 8000 GB per second bandwidth further enables sustained throughput on large batch inference or training jobs where the 1400 W TDP is acceptable.

Choose the H200 when your model and its KV cache fit in 141 GB and you cannot get B300 capacity or cannot justify the newer part. Its 989 TFLOPS of dense FP16, 1979 TFLOPS of dense FP8 and 4800 GB/s of HBM3e are still comfortably enough for mid sized training and high throughput serving, and it offers the same NVLink and InfiniBand fabric options. The H200 is also the clear choice for FP64 scientific code, delivering 34 TFLOPS of FP64 against 1.25 TFLOPS on the B300. Do not choose it for FP4 serving, because it has no published FP4 rating while the B300 lists 13500 TFLOPS dense.