GH200 vs Quadro P4000

The GH200 delivers FP16 dense performance of 989 TFLOPS while the Quadro P4000 has no published FP16 figure. This gap means the GH200 can handle matrix operations in training and inference at scales impossible on the older card. The GH200 also provides FP16 with sparsity at 1979 TFLOPS against no published equivalent for the Quadro P4000. Memory bandwidth of 4000 GB/s on the GH200 versus 243 GB/s on the Quadro P4000 directly influences achievable batch sizes with the higher figure supporting larger batches without swapping to host memory. FP32 performance stands at 67 TFLOPS dense for the GH200 compared to 5.3 TFLOPS for the Quadro P4000 so workloads limited to single precision still see more than a tenfold increase. The 900W TDP of the GH200 versus 105W for the Quadro P4000 reflects the power cost of these higher throughput numbers.

The GH200 suits LLM training and scientific computing tasks that require 96 GB HBM3 VRAM and 4000 GB/s bandwidth. Its FP16 dense rating of 989 TFLOPS and FP8 dense rating of 1979 TFLOPS enable processing of models that exceed the 8 GB limit of the Quadro P4000. Organizations running workloads that benefit from NVLink C2C interconnect choose the GH200 over the PCIe 3.0 interface of the older card.

The Quadro P4000 fits legacy applications that run within 8 GB GDDR5 VRAM and require only 5.3 TFLOPS FP32 performance. Systems already equipped with PCIe 3.0 slots and constrained to 105W power draw continue to use this card for basic rendering or light compute tasks. Users who need a simple PCIe form factor without the 900W TDP of the GH200 select the Quadro P4000.