AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

The NVIDIA B200 and AMD Radeon Pro W6800X occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a complete mismatch in compute capability. The B200 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 345,482, while the W6800X manages 124,498 in the same test. This translates to a 177.5% advantage for the B200, a gap so wide that the two products cannot be considered competitors in any practical sense. The B200 is designed for server-scale compute workloads, while the W6800X is a workstation card for Apple Mac systems, now end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA B200 is the only choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in a server context. Its OpenCL score of 345,482 places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, and it sits 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 8.6% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994). For workloads that scale with FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, or tensor operations, the B200 is in a class of its own, with its only nearest rival above it being the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, which leads by 6.6% (369,831).

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X, with an average benchmark score of 160,671 (97th percentile), is not a viable alternative for the B200’s intended use cases. Its performance is competitive with older or mid-range server and workstation parts—it trails the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.1% (162,504) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 by 2.6% (164,894)—but that is a completely different performance tier. The W6800X is suitable for tasks that fit within a 32 GB GDDR6 frame buffer and require its 16.03 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, but it cannot approach the B200’s 74.45 TFLOPS.

If you are purchasing for a data center, high-performance computing cluster, or AI training pipeline, the B200 is the clear pick, provided your power and cooling infrastructure can handle its 1000 W TDP. If you are restricted to a Mac Pro chassis and need display outputs—which the B200 lacks entirely—then the W6800X is the only one of the two that can physically function in that environment, but you are accepting a 177.5% performance deficit in compute-bound tasks.

Architecture Differences

The B200 is built on NVIDIA’s Blackwell architecture using the GB100 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W6800X uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 21 chip, on a 7 nm node from the same foundry. This process gap is one of several factors behind the B200’s massive lead in transistor count: 104,000 million versus 26,800 million—a difference of roughly 3.9x. The B200 does not list a die size, but the W6800X is specified at 520 mm² with a transistor density of 51.5M per mm².

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, yielding 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The W6800X uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. That is an 8x difference in memory capacity and a 8x bandwidth advantage for the B200. The B200’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the W6800X runs 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), but the W6800X’s narrower bus eliminates any benefit.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores; it does not list RT cores. The W6800X has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores, but no tensor cores. This makes the B200 heavily dependent on tensor acceleration for AI workloads, while the W6800X offers ray tracing support—a feature absent from the B200’s spec sheet. The B200’s FP16 throughput is 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1 ratio), whereas the W6800X delivers 32.06 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), underscoring the B200’s focus on mixed-precision compute.

The B200 is a passive SXM module with no display outputs, while the W6800X is a quad-slot card with 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt outputs. The B200 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the W6800X uses Apple’s MPX bus. Power requirements are also stark: 1000 W TDP for the B200 versus 200 W for the W6800X.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The B200 scores 345,482, while the W6800X scores 124,498. The delta is 177.5% in favor of the B200, meaning the B200 delivers nearly 2.8x the OpenCL performance of the W6800X. This is not a marginal win; it is a complete rout.

For context, the B200’s score is 3.2% higher than the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 16.8% higher than the NVIDIA L40S (295,763). The W6800X, by contrast, sits just below the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504) by 1.1% and below the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094) by 3.3%. The W6800X’s own Metal benchmark score is 196,844, which is higher than its OpenCL score but still far below the B200’s OpenCL result.

The B200 also wins the only head-to-head comparison in the data, with 1 win and 0 losses. This means any workload that relies on OpenCL—common in scientific computing, rendering, and some machine learning frameworks—will see the B200 dominate. The W6800X’s advantage, if any, would have to come from its display outputs or its lower power draw, neither of which affects benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products, based solely on the fact pack:

• Architecture: Blackwell (B200) vs RDNA 2.0 (W6800X)
• Chip: GB100 vs Navi 21
• Process node: 5 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 104,000 million vs 26,800 million
• Die size: Not listed vs 520 mm²
• Transistor density: Not listed vs 51.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 700 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Boost clock: 1965 MHz vs 2087 MHz
• Memory size: 90 GB vs 32 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e vs GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 4.10 TB/s vs 512.0 GB/s
• Memory clock (effective): 8 Gbps vs 16 Gbps
• Shading units: 18,944 vs 3,840
• TMUs: 592 vs 240
• ROPs: 24 vs 96
• RT cores: Not listed vs 60
• Tensor cores: 592 vs Not listed
• Pixel rate: 47.16 GPixel/s vs 200.4 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,163.3 GTexel/s vs 500.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 74.45 TFLOPS vs 16.03 TFLOPS
• FP16: 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) vs 32.06 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 1000 W vs 200 W
• Slot width: SXM Module vs Quad-slot
• Power connectors: Not listed vs Apple MPX
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W vs 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs Apple MPX
• Display outputs: No outputs vs 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt
• DirectX support: Not listed vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL support: Not listed vs 4.6
• Vulkan support: Not listed vs 1.4
• Dimensions (length): Not listed vs 267 mm (10.5 inches)
• Dimensions (height): Not listed vs 120 mm (4.7 inches)
• Production status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release date: Not listed vs 2021-08-02
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 2,799 USD

The W6800X also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 lists no API support. The B200’s predecessor is Server Hopper, with Server Rubin as successor; the W6800X has no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 delivers 74.45 TFLOPS FP32, which is 4.6x the 16.03 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The B200 offers 4.10 TB/s from 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus. The W6800X provides 512.0 GB/s from 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The B200 has an 8x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Can the NVIDIA B200 output to displays?

A: No. The B200 has no display outputs, while the W6800X includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt connectors.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The B200 has a 1000 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The W6800X has a 200 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: How does the B200 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The B200 scores 3.2% higher than the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891), 8.6% higher than the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 16.8% higher than the NVIDIA L40S (295,763). It trails the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6% (369,831).

Q: Is the W6800X competitive with other workstation GPUs?

A: Its average benchmark score of 160,671 is close to the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504), which is 1.1% higher, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894), which is 2.6% higher. It sits 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217).