AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one shared benchmark test between these two parts, Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA B200. The B200 scored 345,482 points against the Radeon PRO W7700's 108,245 points. That is a delta of 219.2 percent, meaning the B200 delivers more than three times the compute throughput in this particular workload. No other head-to-head tests are recorded, so the full picture rests on this single measurement plus each card's broader placement in the database.

The B200's OpenCL score places it at the 100th percentile across all GPUs in the database, which is the maximum possible ranking. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC at 369,831 points, the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 points, the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 points, and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 points. Against those, the B200 trails the B300 by 6.6 percent, but it leads the H200 by 3.2 percent, the MI300X by 8.6 percent, and the L40S by 16.8 percent. This is a tightly contested field at the very top, and the B200 sits comfortably within that elite group, not at the absolute peak but clearly above most of its immediate predecessors and rivals.

The Radeon PRO W7700, by contrast, sits at the 95th percentile across all GPUs, which is still a strong position but far below the B200's perfect score. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 points, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 points, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 points, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 points. The W7700 leads each of these by only 1.3 to 4.4 percent, so it is clustered with a group of mid-to-high-end workstation and mobile parts rather than competing at the absolute top tier. The gap between the two cards in this comparison is enormous: the B200's score is roughly 3.2 times the W7700's score.

The B200 also holds an additional benchmark result in the database, but it is the same Geekbench OpenCL score, so its average benchmark score equals that single value. The W7700 has a second recorded test, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scored 129,706 points, which is higher than its OpenCL result but does not change its overall average of 118,976 points. No Vulkan result exists for the B200, so no direct comparison is possible on that API.

Architecture Differences

The architectures could hardly be more different. The NVIDIA B200 uses the GB100 chip on the Blackwell architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 104,000 million transistors. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, also built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with only 28,100 million transistors. The B200 has no die size recorded in the database, while the W7700 has a die size of 346 mm² and a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The B200's transistor count is nearly four times the W7700's, which explains a large part of the performance disparity.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The B200 ships with 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s. That is a bandwidth difference of roughly 7.1 times in favor of the B200, and a capacity difference of 5.6 times. Memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor for large compute workloads, so this gap alone would predict a major performance separation.

Compute unit counts follow the same pattern. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, along with 592 tensor cores. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 48 ray tracing cores. The B200 has no RT core count listed, and the W7700 has no tensor core count listed, so those features are not directly comparable. The B200's shading unit count is roughly 6.2 times the W7700's, and its TMU count is roughly 3.1 times. The W7700 has four times as many ROPs, however, which reflects its role as a rasterization-oriented workstation card.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The B200 has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 1965 MHz. The W7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The W7700 runs at much higher frequencies, but the B200 compensates with vastly more parallel hardware. Memory clocks also differ: the B200 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The W7700's faster memory clock does not overcome its narrower bus.

The B200's pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s, while the W7700's is 249.6 GPixel/s, a 5.3 times advantage for the AMD card. Texture rates are closer: the B200 delivers 1,163.3 GTexel/s and the W7700 delivers 499.2 GTexel/s, so the B200 leads by about 2.3 times. Floating point performance is where the B200 dominates: 74.45 TFLOPS FP32 versus 31.95 TFLOPS, and 1,191.2 TFLOPS FP16 (16:1) versus 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The FP16 ratio difference is notable, as the B200's tensor cores drive its FP16 throughput to a level that the W7700 cannot approach.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins decisively in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and FP32/FP16 performance. Its OpenCL score is 219.2 percent higher than the W7700's, and its position at the 100th percentile means it outperforms nearly every other GPU in the database. The B200 is designed for server-scale workloads: its 90 GB HBM3e memory and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth are suited to large model inference, training, or scientific simulation tasks that need to hold massive datasets in memory. Its tensor cores and FP16 capabilities point toward AI and deep learning acceleration, where the 16:1 FP16 ratio suggests a heavy reliance on tensor operations rather than general-purpose FP16 compute.

The W7700 wins in rasterization-oriented metrics. Its pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s is more than five times the B200's, and its 96 ROPs are four times the B200's 24. It also has 48 ray tracing cores, a feature the B200 does not list, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 has no API support listed at all. The W7700 also has display outputs, specifically 4x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the B200 has no outputs. This makes the W7700 a usable workstation card for visualization, rendering, or interactive workloads, while the B200 is a compute accelerator that requires a separate display solution.

The W7700's power envelope is dramatically lower: 190 W TDP versus 1000 W, with a suggested PSU of 450 W versus 1400 W. It also uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the B200 has no connector listed and comes as an SXM module. The W7700 is a dual-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the B200's dimensions are not recorded. For systems with power or space constraints, the W7700 is clearly the more practical choice.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation of use cases. If the workload is compute-heavy, involves large memory footprints, or relies on FP16 tensor operations, the NVIDIA B200 is the only reasonable choice between these two. Its OpenCL score is more than three times the W7700's, its memory bandwidth is 7.1 times higher, and its FP32 and FP16 throughput are 2.3 and 18.6 times higher respectively. The B200's 100th percentile ranking relative to all GPUs confirms that it sits at the very top of the database, while the W7700's 95th percentile is strong but not elite.

If the workload is rasterization-based, requires display outputs, or runs in a power-limited workstation, the Radeon PRO W7700 is the better fit. Its pixel rate is 5.3 times the B200's, it has four times as many ROPs, it includes ray tracing cores, and it supports modern graphics APIs. Its 190 W TDP and dual-slot form factor make it practical for a desktop workstation, while the B200's 1000 W TDP and SXM module form factor require a server chassis. The W7700 also has a recorded Vulkan score of 129,706, which is useful for graphics workloads, while the B200 has no such result.

The two cards do not compete for the same buyer. The B200 is a server accelerator for AI and HPC, and the W7700 is a professional graphics card for content creation and visualization. The benchmark gap is not a close contest; it reflects fundamentally different design goals.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 in OpenCL than the AMD Radeon PRO W7700?

A: The B200 scored 345,482 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the W7700 scored 108,245 points, giving the B200 a 219.2 percent advantage.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The B200 has 4.10 TB/s from its 4096-bit HBM3e interface, while the W7700 has 576.0 GB/s from its 256-bit GDDR6 interface, a difference of roughly 7.1 times.

Q: Does the B200 support display outputs?

A: No, the B200 has no display outputs listed. The W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which card has higher pixel throughput?

A: The W7700 has a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s, which is 5.3 times higher than the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the W7700 has a TDP of 190 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card has a higher memory capacity?

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e memory, while the W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, making the B200's capacity 5.6 times larger.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA B200 | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GB100 | Navi 32 |

| Architecture | Blackwell | RDNA 3.0 |

| Generations | Server Blackwell (Bxx) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 4096 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 3,072 |

| TMUs | 592 | 192 |

| ROPs | 24 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | Not recorded | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | Not recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 47.16 GPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,163.3 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 74.45 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 190 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | Not recorded | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | Not recorded | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 241 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Production Status | Active | Not recorded |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2023-11-12 |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Server Rubin | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 999 USD |