AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

The NVIDIA B200 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 occupy vastly different strata of the GPU market, a fact immediately underscored by their benchmark scores. The data presents a stark contrast: one is a server-focused compute monster, the other a professional workstation card. This analysis breaks down the quantitative and architectural chasm between them, relying solely on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808. This gives the B200 a 183.6% performance advantage in this compute-oriented test. This is not a marginal victory; it represents a near-tripling of raw compute throughput in a single, widely-used benchmark.

The magnitude of this lead is further contextualized by the B200's placement among its own rivals. The B200 sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 345,482. Its closest competitor in the provided data is the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, which scores 369,831, putting the B200 6.6% behind that specific part. However, the B200 holds a 3.2% lead over the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and a more substantial 8.6% lead over the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994). These deltas show that while the B200 is at the top of the heap, it is not alone at the summit.

In contrast, the Radeon PRO W6800's average benchmark score of 135,396 places it at the 96th percentile. Its rivalry group is tightly clustered, with the AMD Radeon PRO V620, AMD Radeon PRO W6800X Duo, NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, and NVIDIA A10M all within a 0.8% delta of its score. This indicates that the W6800 is competitive within its own performance tier, but that tier is fundamentally different from the B200's. The OpenCL delta of 183.6% between the two reviewed cards is not a refinement of a category; it is a chasm between categories.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations of these two GPUs could not be more different. The NVIDIA B200 is built on the Blackwell architecture (chip GB100) using a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture (chip Navi 21) on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. This process node difference is a fundamental driver of their performance disparity.

The transistor counts tell a story of scale. The B200 integrates 104,000 million transistors, a figure that dwarfs the W6800's 26,800 million. This massive transistor budget allows the B200 to deploy 18,944 shading units and 592 tensor cores, whereas the W6800 has 3,840 shading units and 60 ray-tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The B200's compute is heavily reliant on its tensor core count for its massive FP16 throughput, while the W6800’s ray-tracing hardware is for graphics workloads, which the B200 lacks.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The B200 utilizes 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s. The W6800, in contrast, has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s. This 8x difference in memory bandwidth is critical for data-intensive server workloads. The B200's texture rate of 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus the W6800's 557.3 GTexel/s and the B200's FP32 of 74.45 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS further illustrate the raw compute gap. The B200 is a data-center accelerator with no display outputs, while the W6800 is a dual-slot workstation card with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, APIs that the B200 has no listed support for.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data and specifications paint a clear picture of distinct use-case dominance. The NVIDIA B200 wins in every quantitative metric that matters for high-performance computing, AI training, and scientific simulation. Its 183.6% OpenCL lead, coupled with its enormous memory capacity (90 GB vs 32 GB) and bandwidth (4.10 TB/s vs 512.0 GB/s), makes it the only choice for models or datasets that require massive, fast memory pools. The B200 is a server module (SXM) with a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, signaling its intended deployment in rack-mounted servers, not desktop workstations.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in the domain of professional visualization and workstation graphics. It has a higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s vs the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s), which is a critical advantage for rendering high-resolution scenes and driving multiple displays. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, alongside its display outputs, makes it a functional graphics card. The W6800's ray-tracing cores, while not benchmarked here, are a feature absent from the B200's spec sheet. The W6800 is end-of-life, but its architecture is designed for a workflow that includes interactive viewport performance and content creation, where the B200 is not applicable.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 183.6% higher than the W6800's score of 121,808.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two cards?

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B200 has no listed API support, as it has no display outputs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and requires a 1400 W PSU. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: How does the NVIDIA B200 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The B200 scores 345,482, which is 8.6% higher than the MI300X's average score of 317,994.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 competitive with other cards in its class?

A: Yes, its average score of 135,396 is nearly identical to rivals like the NVIDIA A10M (135,230) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800X Duo (135,774), with deltas of 0.1% and -0.3% respectively.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear verdict based on workload. For any task that demands extreme compute throughput, massive memory capacity, or high-bandwidth data movement, the NVIDIA B200 is unequivocally the superior product. Its 183.6% OpenCL lead over the W6800 and its position at the 100th percentile of all GPUs make it a top-tier compute accelerator. The B200's 3.2% edge over the H200 NVL and 8.6% edge over the MI300X show it is among the best in its own server class. This is a card for AI training, large-scale simulation, and data center deployment.

For professional workstations focused on graphics, rendering, and display output, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the appropriate choice, despite its lower raw compute scores. Its 96th percentile ranking shows it is a solid performer in its tier, but its advantages lie in features the B200 lacks: display outputs, graphics API support, and a dual-slot form factor that is compatible with standard workstation PCs. The W6800 has a higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s) and a much lower power draw (250 W vs 1000 W), making it practical for a desktop environment. The choice is not about which is "better," but which is suited to the task; the data shows they are not in the same market segment.

Specification Differences

This section highlights the primary specifications where the two products differ based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA B200 | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Blackwell | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | N/A | 520 mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 2322 MHz |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18944 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 592 | 240 |

| ROPs | 24 | 96 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 47.16 GPixel/s | 222.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,163.3 GTexel/s | 557.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 74.45 TFLOPS | 17.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | N/A | 2021-06-07 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 2,249 USD |