AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy entirely different segments of the hardware spectrum, with the former serving as a professional workstation GPU and the latter as a massive server accelerator. The data shows a stark division: the W7700 delivers real, measurable performance in workstation graphics tests, while the B200 SXM6 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct numerical comparison impossible for most workloads. The W7700 posts an average benchmark score of 118,976, while the B200 SXM6 sits at a percentile of 50 with an average score of 0, meaning the database contains no validated performance data for the NVIDIA part. This fundamental gap defines the analysis below.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every measured category for which the database has records. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 108,245 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,706 provide concrete evidence of graphics and compute capability. The W7700 also holds a percentile rank of 95 against all GPUs, placing it well above the B200 SXM6’s 50th percentile. The W7700’s nearest rivals illustrate its competitive position: it leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3 percent, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6 percent, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4 percent, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4 percent in average benchmark score. These margins show a tightly contested workstation field where the W7700 edges out comparable accelerators.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins only in architectural scale and raw specifications, not in recorded benchmark performance. With no benchmarks in the database, its wins are theoretical rather than measured. The B200 SXM6’s specifications indicate a design aimed at server-scale AI and HPC workloads, but the absence of test data means the database cannot confirm any performance advantage. The W7700 is the only part here with validated scores, so it wins the benchmark war by default. For display output, the W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections, while the B200 SXM6 has no outputs, making the AMD card the clear choice for any visual output requirement. The W7700 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the B200 SXM6 lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating no graphics API support in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is dramatic. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture, also on a 5 nm TSMC process but with a far larger die. The W7700 packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The B200 SXM6 integrates 208,000 million transistors on a 1,628 mm² die, with a density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The B200 SXM6’s die is roughly 4.7 times larger by area and holds over 7 times more transistors, but the W7700’s smaller die benefits from a lower power envelope.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The W7700 runs at a base clock of 1900 MHz and boosts to 2600 MHz, typical for a workstation part. The B200 SXM6 has an unusually low base clock of 120 MHz and a boost of 1830 MHz, reflecting its server-oriented design where power efficiency and thermal management dominate. Memory configurations diverge completely: the W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 SXM6’s memory bandwidth is over 14 times higher, and its capacity is over 11 times larger.

Shading and compute resources show the B200 SXM6’s scale advantage. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, but only 24 ROPs, and it lists 592 tensor cores with no ray tracing core count. The B200 SXM6’s FP32 throughput is 69.34 TFLOPS versus the W7700’s 31.95 TFLOPS, a 2.17 times advantage. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on the B200 SXM6 at 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W7700 hits 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). Pixel rates invert the expectation: the W7700 delivers 249.6 GPixel/s, far above the B200 SXM6’s 43.92 GPixel/s, because the NVIDIA part is not designed for rasterization. Texture rates favor the B200 SXM6 at 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 499.2 GTexel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the W7700 versus the B200 SXM6. The W7700 has two individual benchmark scores: 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan. The B200 SXM6 has no benchmark scores at all, so no direct numerical comparison exists. The W7700’s average benchmark score of 118,976 places it 1.3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GB10, 1.6 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 4.4 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile. These rival comparisons provide the only benchmark context available, and they show the W7700 winning by small to moderate margins in a workstation peer group.

The B200 SXM6’s absence from benchmark records means its specification advantages cannot be validated through measured performance. The data indicates the W7700 wins in every recorded test, but the tests themselves are workstation-oriented (OpenCL and Vulkan) and do not cover the server AI workloads the B200 SXM6 targets. The W7700’s Vulkan score of 129,706 exceeds its OpenCL score of 108,245 by roughly 20 percent, suggesting strong graphics API performance. The B200 SXM6’s boost clock of 1830 MHz is lower than the W7700’s 2600 MHz boost, but the B200 SXM6 compensates with far more shading units and tensor cores. Without benchmark data, the B200 SXM6’s real-world performance remains undocumented in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,976, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has an average score of 0, meaning the database records no benchmarks for the B200 SXM6.

Q: How does the W7700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7700 leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3 percent, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6 percent, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4 percent, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4 percent in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory. The B200 SXM6 also has a larger 8192-bit memory bus compared to the W7700’s 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the B200 SXM6 support display outputs?

A: No, the B200 SXM6 lists no display outputs, while the W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS. The B200 SXM6’s FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1), whereas the W7700’s FP16 is 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1).

Q: What is the process node and transistor count for each?

A: Both use a 5 nm TSMC process. The W7700 has 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, and the B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1,628 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The W7700 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with a Navi 32 chip, while the B200 SXM6 uses Blackwell with a GB100 chip. The W7700’s base clock is 1900 MHz and boost is 2600 MHz; the B200 SXM6’s base clock is 120 MHz and boost is 1830 MHz. Memory size is 16 GB versus 180 GB, type is GDDR6 versus HBM3e, bus width is 256 bit versus 8192 bit, and bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 8.19 TB/s. Shading units count 3,072 versus 18,944, TMUs count 192 versus 592, and ROPs count 96 versus 24. The W7700 has 48 ray tracing cores; the B200 SXM6 lists none. The B200 SXM6 has 592 tensor cores; the W7700 lists none.

Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s for the W7700 versus 43.92 GPixel/s for the B200 SXM6. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 69.34 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). Power consumption is 190 W versus 1000 W, with a suggested PSU of 450 W versus 1400 W. The W7700 uses a dual-slot design with a 1x 8-pin power connector; the B200 SXM6 is an SXM module with no power connector listed. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus no outputs. API support shows DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for the W7700, and N/A for all three on the B200 SXM6. Dimensions are 241 mm length and 111 mm height for the W7700; the B200 SXM6 has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are November 12, 2023 for the W7700 and October 31, 2024 for the B200 SXM6. The W7700’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega; the B200 SXM6’s predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. The production status for the B200 SXM6 is Active; the W7700 has no production status listed.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the only part with recorded benchmark performance, making it the clear choice for any workload covered by the database’s tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 108,245 and Vulkan score of 129,706 confirm functional graphics and compute capability, and its 95th percentile rank indicates strong standing against all GPUs. The W7700’s 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and 16 GB GDDR6 memory suit professional workstation use, and its 190 W power draw fits a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector. Rival comparisons show it edging out the NVIDIA GB10, RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and RTX A5500 Mobile by margins from 1.3 to 4.4 percent.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 offers no benchmark results, so the database cannot validate its performance. Its specifications point to a server accelerator with 180 GB HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, and 592 tensor cores, but these numbers remain unconfirmed in practice. The B200 SXM6’s 1000 W power draw, SXM module form factor, and lack of display outputs or graphics APIs align it with datacenter deployment, not workstation tasks. Users needing measured performance should select the W7700. Users requiring the B200 SXM6’s massive memory capacity and tensor core count must rely on its specifications, since no recorded data supports its benchmark claims. The verdict from the data: the W7700 wins all measured categories, while the B200 SXM6 wins only in unverified specification scale.