H100 vs A100
Same 80 GB of memory, two generations apart. What separates them is bandwidth, FP8, and the rate each provider is charging today.
H100 SXM5 80GBHopper
$1.30/ GPU-hour
cheapest at Lium · 31 providers list it
Memory80 GB
Bandwidth3,350 GB/s
Board power700 W
Every H100 SXM5 80GB offer →A100 SXM4 80GBAmpere
$0.75/ GPU-hour
cheapest at Vast.ai · 17 providers list it
Memory80 GB
Bandwidth2,039 GB/s
Board power400 W
Every A100 SXM4 80GB offer →Short answer
- Both hold 80 GB, so any model that fits on one fits on the other. Capacity is not the decision.
- The H100 SXM5 80GB publishes 3.2× the dense BF16 throughput but only 1.6× the memory bandwidth — two different ratios, and which one you feel depends on the workload.
- It rents for 1.74× the price cheapest-to-cheapest, across the 13 providers listing both.
- We have not measured either card on any workload. Everything above is the vendors' own peak figures beside today's published rates.
What separates them
Memory is a tie
80 GB both
Capacity does not separate these two — a model that fits on one fits on the other.
Bandwidth is not
1.6× more
3,350 GB/s against 2,039 GB/s, as the vendor publishes them.
Only one has FP8
H100 SXM5 80GB only
The A100 SXM4 80GB has no FP8 path — that row is blank because the silicon lacks it, not because the number is missing.
The gap depends on where you rent
1.30–3.00×
Across the 13 providers listing both, that is the range of what the H100 SXM5 80GB costs relative to the A100 SXM4 80GB.
Specs side by side
SpecH100 SXM5 80GBA100 SXM4 80GB
Memory
Capacity GB8080
Bandwidth GB/s3,3502,039
Compute
BF16 dense TFLOPS989.5dense312
FP8 dense TFLOPS1,979dense—
TF32 dense TFLOPS494.5dense156
FP32 TFLOPS6719.5
FP64 TFLOPS349.7
INT8 dense TOPS1,979dense624
Platform
NVLink GB/s900600
Board power W700400
Max MIG instances77
Silicon
ArchitectureHopper 2022Ampere 2020
Violet marks the stronger figure. Throughput numbers are the vendors' own published dense peaks, read from H100 SXM5 80GB's product page and A100 SXM4 80GB's product page — not speeds we measured. Process node and transistor count are absent because they are not on the pages we read; architecture comes from our hand-compiled hardware registry, which has no fetch behind it.
Both cards, by providerPrices confirmed 1h ago
ProviderH100 SXM5 80GBA100 SXM4 80GBRatio
On-demand, per GPU, USD, from providers publishing a comparable rate for both cards. 12 more list one of the two but not both. Spot and committed rates are excluded — they are not comparable to on-demand, and mixing them would turn a different product into what looks like a discount.
What actually decides it
Memory is a tie, bandwidth is not
- Identical 80 GB on both, but 3,350 GB/s against 2,039 GB/s — the H100 SXM5 80GB moves weights 1.6× faster.
- That is a smaller gap than the 3.2× in BF16 compute. Work limited by how fast weights move will track the first number; work limited by arithmetic will track the second.
FP8 is present on one side and absent on the other
- The H100 SXM5 80GB publishes 1,979 dense TFLOPS at FP8. The A100 SXM4 80GB publishes no FP8 figure at all.
- That is an absent capability rather than a smaller number — the blank cell in the spec table is the silicon, not a gap in our data.
Where you rent moves more money than which card you pick
- The same H100 SXM5 80GB is published between $1.30 and $12.84 — a 9.9× spread across 24 providers for identical hardware.
- The gap between the two cards is 1.74×. Choosing the provider is worth more than choosing the card, and it is the part a spec sheet cannot tell you.
Other comparisons
More pairings need both cards' specs fetched first.
Working out what a whole run costs?
The calculator prices a job by hours and cards, from these same rates.
Open the calculator