Side-by-side
HS-CM / Compare

HS-CM-01 / Comparison

Helmstone alongside
Lambda Labs & Puget Systems.

Six buyer-decision axes — GPU lineup, sustained memory, thermal validation depth, support SLA, published benchmarks, and starting price. Helmstone scored against the named alternatives on each axis, every claim grounded in /tiers, /benchmarks/rtx-5090#headline, /support#sla, /drivers, and the 2026 Blackwell supply note on /blog/blackwell-supply. Where a competitor publishes no peer, the row stays honest.

See the six axesSpec a buildRead the burn-in numbersSustained workload evidence

How to read this page

Every row cites a real page.

The thermal-validation row on Helmstone's side is read live from the published 48-hour burn-in — no hand-typed thermal number appears anywhere on this page. Where the founder has not pinned a competitor number, the row says so honestly (for example, Lambda's in-line RTX SKU is to be published) instead of inventing one.

The six axes, in buyer-decision order

  1. 01 · GPU lineup. Tier published on /tiers per Helmstone; published Hyperplane / Puget lineup per Lambda / Puget.
  2. 02 · Sustained memory. Per-tier DDR5 ramp on /tiers; comparable figures from competitor tier sheets where published.
  3. 03 · Thermal validation. Published 48-hour burn-in vs "batch tests / multi-day burn-in".
  4. 04 · Support SLA. P1 priorities × metros × parts pre-staging vs weekday email/Slack.
  5. 05 · Published benchmarks. Per-unit signed sheet vs blog-content benchmark notes.
  6. 06 · Starting price. Published pricing band vs on-request quoting flows.

HS-CM-02 / Six scoring axes

Six scoring axes, one card per row of the buyer decision.

Each axis is its own row. Helmstone sits in the brand-tinted column on the left; Lambda Labs and Puget Systems sit in the muted columns. Where there's no published peer for one side, the row says so instead of inventing a comparison.

Numbers trace to the same /tiers, /benchmarks/rtx-5090#headline, /support#sla, and /lead-times sources a buyer can verify; a founder correction is a one-line edit in the comparison payload file and lands in both /compare and the /compare island.

HS-CM-03 / Component references

GPU component specifications.

These are NVIDIA-published GPU specifications, not Helmstone workstation results. They do not establish performance or thermal behavior in a Helmstone chassis. Helmstone’s separate system evidence is published in the 48-hour burn-in benchmark.

NVIDIA B200

GPU memory
Not stated per GPU in this source
Memory bandwidth
Not stated per GPU in this source

DGX B200 system guide →

The guide lists 8 GPUs and 1,440 GB total GPU memory for the DGX system; it does not state per-GPU memory.

Values are limited to what each linked NVIDIA source states at GPU level. The DGX B200 total is a system-level reference and is not divided into a per-GPU figure here.

HS-CM-04 / Sustained workload evidence

Compare the run, not just the GPU.

For ongoing inference or fine-tuning, a useful comparison needs the same workload, software and measurement window on complete systems. The sources below do not establish a matched, sustained workstation result across Helmstone, Lambda Labs and Puget Systems, so this page does not rank their sustained throughput.

Evidence boundary
No matched result shown

GPU specifications are not workstation benchmarks.

NVIDIA component specifications describe individual GPUs. They do not establish sustained throughput, temperatures, or power for a complete workstation. NVIDIA's published inference tables identify workload and system details, but the RTX PRO 6000 entries are Server Edition tests and the table does not report run duration; those values are omitted here as sustained results.

One-system reference · not a head-to-head test

Helmstone's published W1 run

The separate Helmstone record covers one RTX 5090 over 48 hours, running 7B FP16 inference with vLLM at a fixed batch and context length. That is evidence about this tested configuration; without equivalent runs on the alternatives, it does not show which workstation is faster.

Helmstone 48-hour benchmark and conditions →

Sources and scope

These links identify the evidence and its limits. None is presented as a performance guarantee for a buyer's application.

Conditions to request for an apples-to-apples test

  • Pin the workload

    Record the exact model, precision or quantization, prompt and output lengths, context size, and serving software versions.

  • Match the load shape

    Use the same batch or concurrency, request arrival pattern, warm-up, and measured run duration on each system.

  • Report sustained behavior

    Ask for hourly throughput, per-user rate, latency percentiles, whole-system wall power, GPU temperatures, and throttle events.

  • Compare the whole workstation

    Include the complete configuration and cooling or power limits. For fine-tuning, also pin the dataset and training settings, then report steps per second and completed-job time.

Published results depend on their exact models, software, workload and system configuration. Use them as test-specific evidence, not as a forecast or performance guarantee for a different workload or workstation.

HS-CM-04 / Why teams choose Helmstone

Four buyer-decision axes a Helmstone quote answers first.

The competitor table above reads the published source on every row. The four points below mark the rows Helmstone pins against an alternative the buyer is also evaluating — each backed by an in-app page the buyer can verify before the quote arrives.

Helmstone

Thermal validation depth

Every W1 ships with a per-unit signed burn-in sheet — junction °C, sustained draw, and throttle events over the 48-hour canonical run. The buyer gets that sheet at shipment; the comparison table doesn't ask them to take Helmstone's word for the thermal axis.

Read the published burn-in →

Helmstone

Support SLA

P1 4-hour priority metros, on-site 5-business-day swap, and parts pre-staged in 5 metros. The comparison table surfaces the response line that backs the SLA — and the pre-sales engineer who owns the buyer's account.

See the /support SLA →

Helmstone

Per-unit published benchmark

W1 buyers receive the benchmark sheet at shipment; W2 / W4 ship with the founder-pinned cadence that /tiers documents. A buyer picks the SKU first, then the workload, then their own target — and gets a benchmark target from pre-sales signed the same day.

Read the per-tier published line →

Helmstone

Starting-price band

Published starting price on /tiers — W1 From $6,400, W2 From $24,900, W4 From $89,000 — with the same finance band /pricing publishes and a quote flow that hands off into a pre-sales engine the same day. The comparison table is honest about the alternatives that quote on their own call instead.

See the published lineup →

Related comparison

Compare against DIY parts sourcing.

The longer six-axis vs-DIY comparison used to live on this page; it now sits at /vs-diy with the same citations and the same eslint a buyer can audit. The buyer-funnel door to this page is still one click away.

Compare against DIY →

HS-CM-05 / Engage

Talk to engineering about your build.

The six axes are the structure. The numbers that matter — your workload, your batch shape, your service metro, your procurement vehicle — are the inputs a pre-sales engineer needs before a configuration comes back. Write to us with those four and we will return a quote and a benchmark target, signed.

Pin the downtime math first with the BTU / breaker calculator →

Talk to engineering

Send the four inputs an engineer needs.
We respond within one business day, signed by a pre-sales engineer with a configuration and a benchmark target.

Related notes

The supply lens and the driver lens, in plain text.

Anonymized buyers

Buyer case studies.