AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Consequently, there are zero recorded wins for either product in direct comparison. This absence of measurement data is itself informative: the two cards occupy entirely different segments of the GPU market, and no standardized workload has been run across both in the current database.

What the recorded specifications do show is a substantial performance gulf in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 8.8 times the 7.885 TFLOPS offered by the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The FP16 figures mirror this ratio exactly, with both cards maintaining a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 relationship. The B200 SXM6 reaches 69.34 TFLOPS in FP16, while the W7400 also achieves 7.885 TFLOPS. This indicates the NVIDIA part is not artificially halving or doubling throughput based on precision format; it simply scales its massive compute array linearly.

Texture processing tells a similar story. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 achieves a texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s, compared to the AMD W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. That is an 8.8 times advantage for the NVIDIA part, consistent with the FP32 ratio and suggesting the two architectures are balanced in terms of compute per texture unit.

The pixel rate, however, inverts the expected hierarchy. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 produces 70.40 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 produces only 43.92 GPixel/s. This means the W7400 has a 60.3% higher pixel throughput than the B200 SXM6. The explanation lies in the render output unit (ROP) counts: the W7400 has 64 ROPs, while the B200 SXM6 has only 24. The NVIDIA part is clearly not designed for traditional rasterization workloads; its ROP count is minimal relative to its shader array.

Memory bandwidth presents the largest single-category disparity. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 offers 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth through its HBM3e memory subsystem, while the AMD W7400 provides 172.8 GB/s via GDDR6. The NVIDIA card's bandwidth is approximately 47.4 times higher. This is not a modest advantage but a categorical difference in memory architecture philosophy. The B200 SXM6 is built for data movement at scale, while the W7400 is constrained to a 128-bit memory bus.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is approximately 8.8 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3e memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 172.8 GB/s from GDDR6. The NVIDIA part has roughly 47.4 times higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists DirectX as N/A, along with OpenGL and Vulkan also marked N/A, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics API workloads.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1,628 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip has approximately 15.6 times more transistors.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, which is 60.3% higher than the NVIDIA B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s. This stems from the W7400's 64 ROPs versus the B200 SXM6's 24 ROPs.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in traditional graphics-oriented metrics. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the NVIDIA B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s by a clear margin. The W7400 also offers display outputs (4x DisplayPort 2.1), while the B200 SXM6 provides no display outputs at all. For any workload requiring rasterization, frame buffer operations, or direct visual output, the W7400 is the functional choice. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while small, is paired with a 128-bit bus that suits less demanding graphics tasks. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with conventional graphics software stacks. Its single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors allow deployment in standard workstation PCIe slots.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins decisively in compute throughput and memory capacity. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance is unmatched by the W7400. The 180 GB of HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth enables working with data sets that simply cannot fit in the W7400's 8 GB frame buffer. The B200 SXM6's 592 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for matrix operations, a feature entirely absent from the W7400 which lists no tensor core count. The 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate supports heavy texture sampling workloads. The B200 SXM6 uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, double the lane width and a newer generation than the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8. Its SXM module form factor indicates it is intended for dense server installations rather than individual workstations.

The production status for both is Active, meaning neither is discontinued. The AMD card's release date is listed as August 2025, while the NVIDIA card's release date is October 2024, making the B200 SXM6 the earlier product by roughly ten months.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured specification. Memory size: 8 GB on the AMD versus 180 GB on the NVIDIA. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM3e. Bus width: 128 bit versus 8192 bit. Bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s versus 8.19 TB/s. Shading units: 1792 versus 18944. TMUs: 112 versus 592. ROPs: 64 versus 24. RT cores: 28 on the AMD, none listed on the NVIDIA. Tensor cores: none listed on the AMD, 592 on the NVIDIA. FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 69.34 TFLOPS. FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 69.34 TFLOPS. TDP: 55 W versus 1000 W. Slot width: single-slot versus SXM module. Power connectors: none on the AMD, not specified on the NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 1400 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs. DirectX: 12 Ultimate versus N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A. Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A. Dimensions: the AMD measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the NVIDIA has no recorded dimensions. Release date: August 2025 versus October 2024. Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus Server Hopper. Successor: none versus Server Rubin. Launch MSRP: the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 carries a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the AMD has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The process node is 6 nm at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, with no codename listed. It belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC, with 208,000 million transistors on a 1,628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter.

The transistor density figures reveal a significant manufacturing difference: the NVIDIA chip packs 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly double the 65.2 million of the AMD chip. This is consistent with the smaller 5 nm process node. The die size difference is even more pronounced, with the GB100 measuring 1,628 mm², approximately 8 times larger than the Navi 33's 204 mm².

Clock behavior differs substantially. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a much lower base clock but boosts far higher. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The effective data rates are counterintuitive: the AMD's GDDR6 achieves a higher per-pin data rate, but the NVIDIA's 8192-bit bus combined with HBM3e delivers vastly more total bandwidth.

The shader architecture differs in scale. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores. The AMD W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 28 RT cores. The NVIDIA part does not list RT cores, while the AMD part does not list tensor cores. This indicates divergent design priorities: the NVIDIA board emphasizes tensor operations for AI and compute, while the AMD board includes ray tracing hardware for graphics workloads.

The API support reflects the same split. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it a full-featured graphics adapter. The NVIDIA card lists all three APIs as N/A, confirming it is a compute accelerator without a conventional graphics driver stack. The AMD card's display outputs and single-slot design further position it as a workstation graphics product, while the NVIDIA card's SXM module form factor and absence of display outputs position it as a server compute element.