AMD Radeon PRO V710 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. The head-to-head section is empty, and the win counts for both products stand at zero. This absence of shared test data reflects the fundamentally different positioning of the two accelerators in the product stack.

What the database does provide are independent benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO V710, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no recorded benchmark entries at all. The Radeon PRO V710 posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 853 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 116,460. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 58,657, placing it at the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

The B200 SXM6, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile. This does not indicate that the B200 performs at half the level of the V710. It indicates that the database contains no completed workloads for the B200, so any numerical comparison between the two parts would be speculative. The data simply does not support a direct performance ranking.

For context on the Radeon PRO V710, the nearest rivals in the database are all consumer or professional parts with similar average scores. The NVIDIA P102-100 sits 0.2% behind the V710, the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT trails by 0.5%, the Intel Arc A570M is 0.7% back, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM is 1.0% behind. These deltas are small, indicating that the V710's average score places it in a tightly clustered performance band near the top of the database's distribution.

The B200 SXM6 has no nearest rivals listed. The database does not provide any comparable scores for the Blackwell server part, which reinforces that its recorded data is incomplete rather than indicative of weak performance. The only benchmark-relevant conclusion available is that the V710 has measurable results and the B200 does not.

Architecture Differences

The two products diverge at nearly every architectural level. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, under the codename Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on Blackwell architecture and belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation.

Both parts are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node, but the scale of the dies differs enormously. The V710 packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The B200 integrates 208,000 million transistors into a 1,628 mm² die, giving a density of 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The B200's die is roughly 4.7 times larger in area and holds more than 7 times the transistor count.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The V710 runs at a base clock of 1900 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz. The B200 has a much lower base clock of 120 MHz but boosts to 1830 MHz. The large gap between B200 base and boost clocks is typical of a part designed to scale power aggressively under load.

Memory subsystems reflect the different intended workloads. The V710 uses 28 GB of GDDR6 on a 224-bit bus, delivering 504.0 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed. The B200 provides roughly 16 times the memory bandwidth and over 6 times the memory capacity.

Compute unit counts follow the same pattern. The V710 has 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, 96 raster output units, and 54 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core entries recorded. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 592 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core entries recorded. The B200 carries more than 5 times the shading units and more than 2.7 times the texture units, but only one quarter of the raster output units.

Raw throughput figures highlight the B200's advantage in parallel compute. The V710 reaches 27.65 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with the 1:1 ratio noted. The B200 reaches 69.34 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, also at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel rate favors the V710 at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the B200 at 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 432.0 GTexel/s.

Power requirements differ by a wide margin. The V710 has a TDP of 158 W, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a suggested power supply of 450 W. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an SXM Module form factor, and requires a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The B200's power draw is more than 6 times that of the V710, which is consistent with its larger compute and memory resources.

Physical and interface specifications also diverge. The V710 is a single-slot card using PCIe 4.0 x16. The B200 is an SXM Module using PCIe 6.0 x16. Neither part has display outputs. The V710 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its server-oriented design with no graphics API support.

Release timing is close. The V710 launched on October 2, 2024. The B200 launched on October 31, 2024. The V710's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the B200's predecessor is the Server Hopper. The B200 has a successor listed as Server Rubin, while the V710 has none recorded. The B200 carries a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, stated once here as the recorded figure.

The Verdict

The data does not support a direct performance verdict between these two products because the B200 has no recorded benchmark scores. The only honest conclusion from the database is that the V710 is a measurable, benchmarked accelerator with results in the 88th percentile, while the B200 is an unmeasured product in this dataset.

For compute-heavy server workloads, the B200's recorded specifications indicate a much larger resource pool: more transistors, more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, and higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. Its 69.34 TFLOPS in both precision formats is more than double the V710's 27.65 TFLOPS. Its 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth is an order of magnitude above the V710's 504.0 GB/s. Its 180 GB capacity dwarfs the V710's 28 GB. These are architectural facts, not benchmark results, but they carry meaning for any task that scales with memory and compute throughput.

The V710, however, has actual test scores. Its 88th percentile ranking and average score of 58,657 place it among strong performers in the database. Its nearest rivals are within 1% of its average score, which means the V710 sits in a competitive performance cluster. The B200's 50th percentile and zero average score are artifacts of missing data, not evidence of weak performance.

A buyer choosing strictly from recorded data would select the V710 for any workload where benchmark verification matters. A buyer selecting on architectural capacity alone would favor the B200 for large-scale compute and memory-bound tasks. The two products target different segments: the V710 is a single-slot, 158 W accelerator with graphics API support and a conventional PCIe interface, while the B200 is a 1000 W SXM module with no graphics APIs and a server-specific form factor.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The B200 SXM6 has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals recorded. Its percentile of 50 reflects the absence of measured results, not a performance level.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon PRO V710 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The V710's average benchmark score of 58,657 places it 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Arc A570M, and 1.0% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM. All four rivals sit within about one percentage point of the V710.

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon PRO V710 records 27.65 TFLOPS FP32. The B200's figure is more than double the V710's.

Q: What memory configuration does each product use?

A: The V710 uses 28 GB of GDDR6 on a 224-bit bus with 504.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do either of these products support display outputs?

A: Neither product has display outputs. Both are accelerators without video connectivity.

Q: What is the power requirement difference between the two?

A: The V710 has a TDP of 158 W and a suggested power supply of 450 W. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested power supply of 1400 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO V710 wins in every category where measured data exists. It is the only one of the two with benchmark results, and its 88th percentile ranking confirms that it performs well against the broader GPU population in the database. It also wins on pixel rate, delivering 192.0 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s for the B200, which suggests a stronger fit for rasterization-style workloads if such tasks were ever run on these parts. The V710's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it a software compatibility advantage that the B200 entirely lacks, as the B200 records N/A for all three graphics APIs.

The V710 also wins on power efficiency in a practical sense. Its 158 W TDP and 450 W suggested power supply make it deployable in conventional single-slot PCIe systems with a single 8-pin connector. The B200's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested power supply require specialized server infrastructure. The V710's 346 mm² die and 28,100 million transistors represent a far smaller manufacturing footprint, and its 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter density is lower than the B200's 127.8 million, meaning the V710 is the less dense but far less power-hungry part.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins on raw architectural capacity. Its 208,000 million transistors, 1,628 mm² die, 180 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 18,944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, and 69.34 TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16 place it in a different performance class for compute-heavy server workloads. Its 592 texture mapping units outnumber the V710's 216, and its 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate is more than double the V710's 432.0 GTexel/s. The B200's 8192-bit memory bus is 36.6 times wider than the V710's 224-bit bus, and its memory capacity is more than 6 times larger.

The B200 also wins on transistor density, packing 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter versus 81.2 million for the V710. Its PCIe 6.0 x16 interface is a newer bus standard than the V710's PCIe 4.0 x16. The B200's production status is listed as Active, while the V710 has no production status recorded. The B200's successor is listed as Server Rubin, indicating an ongoing product line, while the V710 has no successor recorded.

In terms of release timing, the two parts launched less than a month apart, with the V710 on October 2, 2024, and the B200 on October 31, 2024. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper, while the V710's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. The B200 carries the only recorded launch MSRP in this comparison at 34,999 USD.

The workload split is clear from the data. The V710 suits environments that require measured, verified performance, graphics API compatibility, moderate power draw, and standard PCIe installation. The B200 suits environments that demand maximum memory bandwidth, massive memory capacity, high FP32 and FP16 throughput, and tensor core availability for accelerated compute tasks. Each product wins in the domain its specifications target, and the absence of B200 benchmark data means the V710 remains the only one of the two with demonstrated test results in the database.