AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 760M and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum. The 760M is an integrated graphics processor designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the B200 SXM6 is a massive server accelerator built for data centers. The recorded data shows a gap in nearly every measurable category, though the comparison becomes more nuanced when examining specific application types. The 760M has an average benchmark score of 6019 across its validated tests, while the B200 SXM6 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct numerical comparison impossible for some workloads. The 760M sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, a modest placement that reflects its integrated nature, while the B200 SXM6 holds the 50th percentile, a figure that appears paradoxical given its raw specifications, but the lack of test data explains this placement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. The 760M has ten individual benchmark scores, while the B200 SXM6 has zero recorded scores. This absence of data is itself informative, as it highlights the different validation paths these products follow. The 760M is tested through consumer-oriented suites like 3DMark, Geekbench, and PassMark, while the B200 SXM6, with its server classification, appears in no such consumer benchmark database. The 760M achieves 400 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a low score that reflects its 15 W power envelope. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M records 20255, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 30336. These scores show the integrated GPU can handle compute tasks at a basic level, but they offer no comparison point for the B200 SXM6.

PassMark results for the 760M provide a more granular picture. The G3D score is 5310, the G2D score is 890, and the GPU compute score is 2840. The DirectX 10 score is 19, DirectX 11 is 52, DirectX 12 is 25, and DirectX 9 is 65. These numbers indicate that the older DirectX 9 and 11 workloads score higher relative to the newer DirectX 12 path, which suggests driver overhead or architectural prioritization. The B200 SXM6 has no equivalent scores, so the head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural specifications rather than measured performance.

The lack of shared benchmarks means the most useful data point is the average benchmark score. The 760M averages 6019, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6001 with a delta of 0.3 percent, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 with a delta of 0.3 percent, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 with a delta of 0.4 percent, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 with a delta of -0.5 percent. These deltas show the 760M sits within half a percent of its closest competitors, a tight grouping that implies the integrated GPU performs roughly on par with entry-level discrete cards from previous generations. The B200 SXM6 has no nearest rivals listed, reinforcing its position outside the consumer benchmark ecosystem.

Where Each One Wins

The 760M wins in any scenario that requires integrated operation. It uses system shared memory, has no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP, meaning it can function in a laptop motherboard with no additional cooling beyond the system's standard design. Its 15 W TDP allows it to exist in ultraportable devices. The B200 SXM6, in contrast, requires a 1400 W suggested power supply, uses a 1000 W TDP, and comes as an SXM module with no display outputs. For desktop or laptop use, the B200 SXM6 is not viable, while the 760M is designed precisely for that environment.

The B200 SXM6 wins in raw compute density. Its FP32 throughput is 69.34 TFLOPS, its FP16 throughput is also 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, and its texture rate reaches 1083.4 GTexel/s. The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio, and its texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s. The B200 SXM6 provides roughly 13 times the FP32 throughput and about 13 times the texture rate. The pixel rates are closer, with the B200 SXM6 at 43.92 GPixel/s and the 760M at 41.58 GPixel/s, a difference of about 5.6 percent, which indicates the 760M's ROP configuration is relatively strong for its size.

Memory is another clear point of divergence. The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its memory performance is entirely dictated by the host system's RAM and memory controller. The B200 SXM6 also has 592 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the 760M, which lists no tensor core count. This makes the B200 SXM6 the clear choice for AI inference and training workloads, while the 760M has no tensor acceleration path.

Architecture Differences

The 760M uses the Phoenix chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on Blackwell architecture, also manufactured at TSMC but on a 5 nm process. The transistor counts differ dramatically: the 760M has 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, giving a density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, with a density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The 760M achieves higher transistor density despite the larger process node, which indicates a more compact design or a different transistor structure. The B200 SXM6 uses a much larger die, over nine times the area of the 760M, to accommodate its massive compute resources.

The compute units differ in structure. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The B200 SXM6 has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count listed. The shading unit count on the B200 SXM6 is 37 times higher than the 760M, and its TMU count is 18.5 times higher. The ROP count is only 1.5 times higher, which explains the modest pixel rate difference. The 760M's RDNA 3.0 architecture integrates ray tracing support, while the B200 SXM6's Blackwell architecture prioritizes tensor operations, as indicated by the 592 tensor cores.

API support further separates the two. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, meaning it is not designed for graphics API workloads in the traditional sense. The B200 SXM6 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs, while the 760M's outputs are motherboard dependent. Clock behavior also differs: the 760M runs at a base of 800 MHz and boosts to 2599 MHz, while the B200 SXM6 has a base of 120 MHz and boosts to 1830 MHz. The B200's low base clock suggests it relies on its massive parallel width rather than high clock speeds, while the 760M's higher boost clock compensates for its smaller shader count.

FAQ

Q: Why does the B200 SXM6 have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The B200 SXM6 lists an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. This indicates the database has no recorded performance tests for this server accelerator, likely because consumer benchmark suites do not run on it.

Q: What is the performance difference in FP32 compute?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS. The B200 SXM6 provides approximately 13 times the FP32 compute of the 760M.

Q: How do memory configurations compare?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so its memory performance is determined by the host system.

Q: Can the B200 SXM6 be used for gaming?

A: The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it the only one of the two that can drive a display for gaming.

Q: Which product has higher transistor density?

A: The 760M has a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter on a 4 nm process, while the B200 SXM6 has 127.8 million per square millimeter on a 5 nm process. The 760M is denser despite the smaller absolute transistor count.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The 760M has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, while the B200 SXM6 has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The B200 SXM6 also uses an SXM module slot, whereas the 760M is an IGP.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of purpose. The 760M is the appropriate choice for any system that needs integrated graphics, display output, and low power consumption. Its 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, and support for modern graphics APIs make it functional in laptops and compact desktops. Its average benchmark score of 6019 and 35th percentile ranking place it among entry-level discrete GPUs from prior generations, as shown by its near-identical scores to the RX 6400 and GTX 770M. The 760M also offers ray tracing cores, which the B200 SXM6 does not list, and a higher boost clock of 2599 MHz.

The B200 SXM6 is the appropriate choice for server environments requiring massive compute throughput, high memory capacity, and tensor acceleration. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 180 GB HBM3e memory, and 592 tensor cores are unmatched by the 760M. The lack of display outputs and graphics API support makes it unsuitable for consumer workloads, but its 50th percentile ranking and absence of benchmark data indicate it is not measured by the same standards. The 760M wins in portability, power efficiency, and graphics capability. The B200 SXM6 wins in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and AI-specific features. The choice depends entirely on the workload: consumer graphics points to the 760M, server compute points to the B200 SXM6.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every major specification category. The 760M uses the Phoenix chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip on Blackwell architecture. The process nodes are 4 nm for the 760M and 5 nm for the B200 SXM6, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 25,390 million for the 760M and 208,000 million for the B200 SXM6. Die sizes are 178 mm² and 1628 mm² respectively. Transistor density favors the 760M at 142.6M per mm² versus 127.8M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge: the 760M has a base of 800 MHz and boost of 2599 MHz, while the B200 SXM6 has a base of 120 MHz and boost of 1830 MHz. Memory differs completely: the 760M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. Shading units number 512 for the 760M and 18944 for the B200 SXM6. TMUs are 32 versus 592. ROPs are 16 versus 24. Ray tracing cores are 8 for the 760M, while the B200 SXM6 lists none. Tensor cores are absent on the 760M and number 592 on the B200 SXM6.

Pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s for the 760M and 43.92 GPixel/s for the B200 SXM6. Texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s versus 1083.4 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 both sit at 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M and 69.34 TFLOPS for the B200 SXM6, with both using a 1:1 ratio. TDP is 15 W versus 1000 W. The 760M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the B200 SXM6 is an SXM Module with a 1400 W suggested power supply. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 760M and PCIe 6.0 x16 for the B200 SXM6. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 760M and absent for the B200 SXM6. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 SXM6 lists N/A for all three. Release dates are January 30, 2024 for the 760M and October 31, 2024 for the B200 SXM6. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, while the 760M has no recorded MSRP.