AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA B200 and AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 occupy entirely different tiers of the server accelerator market, separated by a wide gulf in both architecture generation and measured performance. Based on the database records, the B200 is the clear winner for any workload that depends on raw OpenCL compute throughput, delivering a score that is 273.5% higher than the MI60 in the sole head-to-head benchmark. The MI60, meanwhile, remains a functional data center card for legacy deployments, but the data shows it cannot compete with the B200 on raw compute density.

For organizations seeking maximum compute throughput in a modern server platform, the NVIDIA B200 is the only choice between these two. Its average benchmark score of 345,482 places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning no other recorded GPU scores higher. The MI60, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile, which is still a respectable position, but its average score of 92,466 is roughly one-quarter of the B200's result. The B200 also leads its nearest rivals: it is 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 8.6% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 16.8% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S. The only recorded GPU above it, the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, is 6.6% faster, but that does not diminish the B200's top-tier standing.

The MI60, released in late 2018, is end-of-life, while the B200 is active. For new deployments, the B200 is the clear choice. For existing MI60 installations that do not require the B200's performance level, the MI60 still has utility for tasks that are not compute-bound, but the benchmark gap is simply too large to recommend it for any performance-critical application. The data indicates that the B200 is for users who need the absolute top of the spectrum, while the MI60 is for users who have a modest compute budget and can work within its limitations.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators are built on different process nodes, transistor counts, and compute architectures. The NVIDIA B200 uses the GB100 chip on a 5 nm process from TSMC, housing 104,000 million transistors. The AMD MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC, but with 13,230 million transistors and a die size of 331 mm². The B200's transistor density is not recorded in the database, but the MI60's density is listed at 40.0 million transistors per mm².

The B200 is based on the Blackwell architecture, which is a continuation of NVIDIA's server-focused design lineage (predecessor: Server Hopper, successor: Server Rubin). The MI60 is based on GCN 5.1, AMD's older graphics core next architecture, with a generation label of Radeon Instinct (MIx). This generation gap is reflected in the feature sets: the B200 has 592 tensor cores, while the MI60 has no tensor cores at all. The B200 also has no display outputs, while the MI60 includes a single mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output.

Memory configurations differ sharply as well. The B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s. The MI60 uses 32 GB of HBM2 memory on the same 4096-bit bus width, but its bandwidth is only 1.02 TB/s. The memory clock for the B200 is listed at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the MI60's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The B200 also has a much larger memory capacity, which is important for large models and datasets.

The compute resources are also vastly different. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The MI60 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The B200's FP32 throughput is 74.45 TFLOPS, compared to the MI60's 14.75 TFLOPS. For FP16, the B200 achieves 1,191.2 TFLOPS (at a 16:1 ratio), while the MI60 achieves 29.49 TFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio). The B200's texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, versus 460.8 GTexel/s for the MI60. The B200's pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s, which is actually lower than the MI60's 115.2 GPixel/s, a quirk due to the B200's low ROP count.

Power and physical specs also differ. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and is an SXM module, with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The MI60 has a TDP of 300 W, is a dual-slot card, uses a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 700 W. The B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the MI60 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI60 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the B200's dimensions are not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA B200 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, which is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the B200 scored 345,482 versus the MI60's 92,488, a 273.5% advantage. The B200's average benchmark score across all tests is 345,482, and it has one win in the head-to-head comparison. The MI60 has zero wins in head-to-head comparisons.

The MI60 does have an edge in a few specific areas that are not compute-related. It has a higher pixel rate (115.2 GPixel/s vs. 47.16 GPixel/s), which could theoretically benefit certain rasterization tasks, although neither card is designed for that purpose. The MI60 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 APIs, while the B200 has no listed API support for those graphics APIs, only OpenCL. Additionally, the MI60 has a display output (mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the B200 has no outputs at all, meaning it is purely for compute and cannot drive a display.

In terms of power efficiency, the MI60 uses 300 W for its 92,466 average score, while the B200 uses 1000 W for its 345,482 average score. The B200 produces roughly 3.7 times the score for 3.3 times the power draw, giving it a slightly better performance-per-watt ratio in this specific comparison. However, the power draw is a secondary consideration for most server deployments.

For use cases, the B200 is designed for the highest-end compute, with its 90 GB of HBM3e and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, making it suitable for large-scale AI inference and training, scientific simulations, and other memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks. The MI60, with its 32 GB of HBM2 and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth, is more suitable for smaller workloads or as a legacy option where the B200's power and space requirements are not feasible.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 than the AMD MI60 in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the B200 scored 345,482, while the MI60 scored 92,488. The B200 is 273.5% faster in this benchmark.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The B200 has an average benchmark score of 345,482, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The MI60 has an average benchmark score of 92,466, placing it at the 93rd percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory and higher bandwidth?

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s. The MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s.

Q: Does the MI60 support any display outputs?

A: Yes, the MI60 has a single mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output. The B200 has no display outputs at all.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The MI60 has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: Which one has tensor cores?

A: The B200 has 592 tensor cores. The MI60 has no tensor cores, as it is based on the older GCN 5.1 architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between the B200 and the MI60 is Geekbench OpenCL. The B200 scored 345,482, and the MI60 scored 92,488. The delta of 273.5% is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and it is a clear indication of the generational gap between these two accelerators.

To put this in context, the B200's nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL, has an average score of 334,891, which is 3.2% lower than the B200. The AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994, which is 8.6% lower. The B200 even outscores the NVIDIA L40S by 16.8%. The MI60's nearest rivals are much closer in performance: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is 0.9% lower, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is 1.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro VII is 4.8% higher, while the AMD Radeon RX 7900M is 5.2% higher.

The single benchmark result underscores the B200's dominance. The B200's average score of 345,482 is 3.7 times the MI60's average of 92,466. Even the MI60's highest recorded score, which is the OpenCL result of 92,488, is still less than one-third of the B200's result. The Vulkan score for the MI60 is 92,444, slightly lower than its OpenCL score, but the B200 does not have a recorded Vulkan result.

In terms of compute throughput, the B200's FP32 rate of 74.45 TFLOPS is 5.05 times the MI60's 14.75 TFLOPS. The FP16 rate is even more lopsided: the B200 produces 1,191.2 TFLOPS, which is 40.4 times the MI60's 29.49 TFLOPS. These raw numbers are not directly benchmarked, but they align with the recorded OpenCL scores.

The B200's memory bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s is 4.02 times the MI60's 1.02 TB/s, and its memory capacity of 90 GB is 2.81 times the MI60's 32 GB. For workloads that are memory-bound, the B200 has a decisive advantage.

One notable difference in the recorded data is the transistor count. The B200 has 104,000 million transistors, while the MI60 has 13,230 million, a factor of 7.86. This, combined with the B200's 5 nm process versus the MI60's 7 nm process, explains the substantial performance gap.

The MI60's pixel rate (115.2 GPixel/s) is higher than the B200's (47.16 GPixel/s), but this is not reflected in any benchmark win, as the only recorded test is OpenCL compute. The MI60's texture rate (460.8 GTexel/s) is also lower than the B200's (1,163.3 GTexel/s), further indicating that the B200 is stronger in texturing workloads.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a 273.5% advantage for the B200 in OpenCL, and no test in the database shows the MI60 winning. The B200 is the definitive choice for any compute workload that can utilize its full capabilities.