RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs H200 NVL for LLM inference: when 96 GB is enough
- Both draw up to 600 W from a PCIe Gen5 slot. The difference is memory: 96 GB of GDDR7 at 1,597 GB/s against 141 GB of HBM3e at 4,800 GB/s
- Single-stream generation is bandwidth-bound. The ceiling is memory bandwidth divided by the bytes of weights read per token: about 40 tok/s for a 70B NVFP4 model on the RTX PRO 6000, about 68 tok/s for 70B FP8 on the H200 NVL
- FP4 is the Blackwell card’s answer: Llama 3.3 70B shrinks from 68 GiB in FP8 to 40 GiB in NVFP4 with a two-point drop on MMLU, and it fits with room for a 32k context
- The H200 NVL wins on concurrency and latency: in MLPerf Inference v6.0, eight H200 NVL cards deliver 2.6× the interactive Llama 2 70B throughput of eight RTX PRO 6000
- H200 NVL includes a five-year NVIDIA AI Enterprise subscription and bridges 2 or 4 cards over NVLink; the RTX PRO 6000 has neither, and MIG splits it four ways instead of seven
The same slot, two different memories
On paper the cards look like neighbours: dual-slot, passive, PCIe Gen5, up to 600 W configurable, both sold for inference in ordinary rack servers. What separates them is the memory system. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition carries 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus for 1,597 GB/s. The H200 NVL carries 141 GB of HBM3e for 4,800 GB/s. Three times the bandwidth and half again the capacity, at the same power.
Everything in this article follows from those two numbers and from one fact of LLM inference: producing a token means reading every weight of the model once. Generation speed for a single user is a bandwidth problem, not a compute problem.
Specifications that matter for inference
| PARAMETER | RTX PRO 6000 SERVER EDITION | H200 NVL |
|---|---|---|
| Memory | 96 GB GDDR7 with ECC | 141 GB HBM3e |
| Bandwidth | 1,597 GB/s | 4,800 GB/s |
| FP8 Tensor (dense) | ~1 PFLOPS | 1,671 TFLOPS |
| FP4 Tensor | yes, NVFP4 and MXFP4 in TensorRT-LLM | no |
| Board power | up to 600 W, configurable | up to 600 W, configurable |
| Multi-GPU link | PCIe Gen5 only | NVLink bridge, 2- or 4-way, 900 GB/s per GPU |
| MIG | up to 4 × 24 GB | up to 7 × 1g.18gb (16.5 GB usable) |
| NVIDIA AI Enterprise | licensed separately, per GPU | five-year subscription included |
| Compute capability | 12.0 | 9.0 |
Sources: NVIDIA product pages for both cards, TensorRT-LLM quantisation support matrix, NVIDIA AI Enterprise licensing guide. H200 NVL Tensor figures are NVIDIA’s sparsity numbers halved.
How big is the model, really
Take Llama 3.3 70B, the model most of our sizing requests start from. The published NVIDIA FP8 checkpoint is 72.7 GB on disk, about 68 GiB in memory. The NVIDIA NVFP4 checkpoint is 42.7 GB, about 40 GiB, and the model card reports MMLU falling from 83.3 to 81.1 and GSM8K from 95.3 to 92.6 for the compression. For most business tasks that is a trade worth making; for some it is not, and the decision belongs to whoever owns the evaluation set.
Then the KV cache. Llama 3 70B has 80 layers, 8 key-value heads and a head dimension of 128, so every token in context costs 320 KiB in FP16 or 160 KiB in FP8. A 32k-token context is therefore 10 GiB in FP16, 5 GiB in FP8, per concurrent request at full length.
| LLAMA 3.3 70B | WEIGHTS | FITS 96 GB? | FITS 141 GB? |
|---|---|---|---|
| FP16 | 132 GiB | no | no |
| FP8 | 68 GiB | yes, ~25 GiB left for KV cache | yes, ~70 GiB left |
| NVFP4 | 40 GiB | yes, ~50 GiB left | yes, as INT4 weight-only (AWQ/GPTQ); Hopper has no FP4 Tensor path |
gpt-oss-120b is the other frequent request: 117B parameters, 5.1B active, MXFP4 weights, 65 GB on disk. It fits either card. Qwen3-235B-A22B does not: even in NVFP4 it is around 134 GB of weights, which exceeds 96 GB outright and leaves the H200 NVL with almost no room for context.
The arithmetic behind tokens per second
NVIDIA’s own inference-optimisation guide puts it plainly: in the decode phase, the speed at which weights are transferred from memory dominates latency, not the arithmetic. A useful ceiling for one user is bandwidth divided by the bytes of weights read per token.
| MODEL AND PRECISION | RTX PRO 6000 (1,597 GB/s) | H200 NVL (4,800 GB/s) |
|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B, FP8, ~70 GB | ~23 tok/s | ~68 tok/s |
| Llama 3.3 70B, 4-bit weights, ~40 GB | ~40 tok/s (NVFP4) | ~120 tok/s (INT4 weight-only; no native NVFP4) |
| gpt-oss-120b, MXFP4, ~65 GB | ~25 tok/s | ~74 tok/s |
Single-stream ceilings from bandwidth ÷ weight bytes, not measurements. Real numbers land below the ceiling; the ranking does not change.
This is why the H200 NVL feels three times faster to one person typing at any precision: 4-bit weights help both cards, and the bandwidth ratio stays. It is also why batching changes the picture: with many concurrent requests, the same weights serve many tokens per read, the workload becomes compute-bound, and the Blackwell card’s FP4 Tensor Cores start to count.
What the published benchmarks say
NVIDIA’s TensorRT-LLM performance table lists Llama 3.3 70B in FP4 on one RTX PRO 6000 Server Edition at 1,724 output tokens per second per GPU under full load with 1,000-token prompts, falling to 296 with 8,192-token prompts. That is the batched, throughput-first regime.
MLPerf Inference v6.0 gives the only like-for-like public numbers. On the Llama 2 70B interactive scenario, which caps time-to-first-token at 450 ms and time-per-output-token at 40 ms, a Dell XE7740 with eight H200 NVL cards reached 16,343.8 tokens per second; an eight-card RTX PRO 6000 system reached 6,238.1. On the offline scenario, where latency does not count, the same chassis reached 32,004.0 tokens per second with eight H200 NVL in FP8 and 27,034.8 with eight RTX PRO 6000 in FP4; in the server scenario 29,084.9 against 25,524.1. A two-card HPE system with RTX PRO 6000 reached 6,901.9 offline.
Read together: when every user is waiting, the H200 NVL delivers about 2.6 times the interactive throughput per card. When the work is a queue of documents nobody is watching, the gap shrinks to about 18 per cent, and the Blackwell card in FP4 is a strong throughput engine at the same power, at a fraction of the memory cost.
When 96 GB is enough
The RTX PRO 6000 Server Edition is the right card when the model fits in FP4 or FP8 with the context and concurrency you actually run; when the traffic is batch or asynchronous, so throughput matters more than latency per user; when four isolated MIG tenants per card is the requirement; when the same host also needs rendering, video or virtual workstations; and when the fleet has no NVLink and never will.
The H200 NVL is the right card when users are interactive and the per-token latency is a promise; when contexts are long and concurrency high, so the KV cache, not the weights, fills the memory; when the model is above roughly 100B dense parameters and has to stay on one host, where two or four bridged cards share 282 or 564 GB over NVLink at 900 GB/s per GPU; and when the five-year AI Enterprise subscription is part of the budget anyway, because the H200 NVL brings it and the RTX PRO 6000 does not.
Our engineering partner Vixen.UNO runs the sizing from the model, the precision the evaluation set tolerates, the concurrency and the context length, in that order. The card is the output of that worksheet, and a surprising number of 70B requests end on one Blackwell card.
FAQ
Does Llama 3.3 70B fit on one RTX PRO 6000?
Why is the H200 NVL so much faster for one user?
Can the H200 NVL run FP4 models?
Which card takes more MIG instances?
Do I need NVLink for inference?
Is NVIDIA AI Enterprise included?
Send us the model, the expected concurrency and the context length. We will size the card and the server around them. We reply within one business day.
Talk to an expertWe reply within one business day