Efficiency arrives in steps, not trends
driver a named mechanism, not a conclusion
Perf/W across shipping parts, TFLOP/kW: h200 1413 · h100 1413 · mi300x 1743 · gb200 1875 · b200 2250. The gain is concentrated at architecture changes and flat between them, so token growth passes through to megawatt demand at close to 1:1 except at refresh points. This is the physical leg of the power thesis.
The path
| node | effect |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA H200 (SXM) | +0.30 |
| NVIDIA H100 (SXM) | +0.30 |
| AMD MI300X | +0.30 |
| NVIDIA GB200 (per-GPU in NVL72) | +0.30 |
| NVIDIA B200 | +0.30 |
coverage
5 parts carry a published perf/W. Board power is a vendor figure and NVIDIA publishes no per-GPU wattage for GB200 at all, so the denominator is the weakest input here — the ORDERING is the claim, not the ratios.
Arguments about this mechanism
These name its subject — they are claims about this mechanism, and they are what the eligibility gates grade.
Arguments that run through it
These name a node on the path rather than the subject, so they pass through this mechanism without being about it. Shown separately and never graded as claims about it — hubs above the graph’s own 90th-percentile degree are excluded, or every argument touching NVIDIA would attach to every mechanism NVIDIA touches.