AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

The NVIDIA B200 and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 occupy opposite ends of the professional GPU spectrum, and benchmark data confirms they are not direct competitors. The B200 delivers more than double the OpenCL performance of the W7800, establishing itself as a dominant force for compute-intensive workloads. The W7800, meanwhile, offers a balanced feature set for graphics-centric tasks, though it trails significantly in raw computational throughput. This analysis breaks down the data to clarify where each card excels and which type of user should prioritize one over the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively lopsided. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 manages 154,366 points. This represents a 123.8% advantage for the B200, meaning it is more than twice as fast in this compute-oriented test. The delta is staggering and underscores the fundamental difference in their design targets.

To contextualize the B200’s lead, its OpenCL score places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, a perfect record that indicates it outperforms every other card in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, scores 369,831, which is 6.6% higher, showing the B200 is only bested by its immediate successor. Against more established data-center parts, the B200 leads the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 3.2% (334,891) and the AMD Instinct MI300X by 8.6% (317,994). Even the NVIDIA L40S, a capable workstation card, trails by 16.8% with a score of 295,763. Every one of these comparisons reinforces the B200’s position as a top-tier compute accelerator.

The W7800’s OpenCL score of 154,366 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, which is still strong, but the context is entirely different. Its nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 165,217 (0.2% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X scores 168,574 (2.2% higher). The W7800 does edge out the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, which scores 162,504, giving it a 1.5% advantage. These deltas are minor, indicating the W7800 is firmly in a competitive mid-range tier for OpenCL workloads, but it is nowhere near the B200’s stratospheric performance level.

The head-to-head table confirms the outcome: the B200 wins the single shared benchmark, with one win for NVIDIA and zero for AMD. The 123.8% delta is not a marginal victory but a complete rout, making it clear that any comparison between these two is a matter of different performance classes rather than close competition.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs explains their divergent benchmark results. The NVIDIA B200 is built on the Blackwell architecture, using the GB100 chip, and is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs a massive 104,000 million transistors, a figure that dwarfs the W7800’s 57,700 million. The B200’s design is optimized for compute density, with 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 74.45 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance reaches 1,191.2 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio, highlighting its extreme capability for mixed-precision and AI workloads.

Memory is another differentiator. The B200 features 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s. This colossal memory subsystem is designed for large-scale models and datasets that require rapid access to vast amounts of data. The W7800, in contrast, uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. While 32 GB is respectable for many professional tasks, it is less than half the capacity and offers roughly one-seventh the bandwidth of the B200.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the Navi 31 chip and the codename Plum Bonito. It is also manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but its die size is 529 mm² with a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The B200 does not list a die size, but its transistor count alone indicates a significantly larger and more complex chip. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray-tracing cores, but it lacks dedicated tensor cores. Its FP32 performance is 45.25 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 90.50 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which is far lower than the B200’s FP16 output.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The W7800 runs at a base clock of 1895 MHz and a boost clock of 2525 MHz, reflecting a design tuned for higher frequencies and graphics responsiveness. The B200’s base clock is just 700 MHz, with a boost of 1965 MHz, indicating a focus on massive parallel throughput rather than raw clock speed. The B200’s pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, while the W7800 achieves a much higher pixel rate of 323.2 GPixel/s but a lower texture rate of 707.0 GTexel/s. This suggests the W7800 is better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks, while the B200 excels at shader and texture compute.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA B200 is the superior performer for compute workloads, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is a different class of product. The B200’s OpenCL score of 345,482 is 123.8% higher than the W7800’s 154,366, and its 100th percentile ranking confirms it is among the fastest GPUs ever measured. Any user prioritizing raw computational power, large memory capacity, or AI-related tasks should choose the B200 without hesitation. Its 90 GB of HBM3e memory and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the W7800, and its FP16 performance of 1,191.2 TFLOPS makes it a clear choice for deep learning and scientific simulation.

The W7800, however, is not without merit. Its 97th percentile ranking shows it is a strong performer in its own right, and its nearest rivals are all within a 2.2% delta, indicating a competitive field. The W7800’s higher boost clock of 2525 MHz, superior pixel rate of 323.2 GPixel/s, and support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it a versatile option for graphics-intensive work. It also includes display outputs, with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, something the B200 lacks entirely, as it has no outputs.

For a user building a workstation for rendering, video editing, or CAD, the W7800 is a sensible choice, especially given its lower power draw of 260 W compared to the B200’s 1000 W. But for a data center or research environment where compute is king, the B200 is the only logical option. The B200’s 74.45 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 64.5% higher than the W7800’s 45.25 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth advantage is over 7x. There is no scenario from the data where the W7800 outperforms the B200 in raw compute, so the verdict is clear: the B200 for performance, the W7800 for graphics-focused professional use.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, which is 123.8% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7800’s score of 154,366.

Q: How does the B200 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The B200 leads the H200 NVL by 3.2%, with scores of 345,482 and 334,891, respectively.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e memory, while the W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, a difference of 58 GB.

Q: Does the W7800 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the W7800 has 70 ray-tracing cores, whereas the B200 does not list any ray-tracing core count.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The W7800 has a boost clock of 2525 MHz, which is higher than the B200’s boost clock of 1965 MHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The B200’s average benchmark score is 345,482, while the W7800’s average is 164,894.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B200 wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 345,482 is more than double the W7800’s, and its 100th percentile ranking means it is at the top of the performance pyramid. The B200 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, with 90 GB and 4.10 TB/s versus the W7800’s 32 GB and 576.0 GB/s. For tasks like training large neural networks, processing massive scientific datasets, or running high-performance simulations, the B200 is the clear winner. Its FP16 performance of 1,191.2 TFLOPS is particularly suited for AI inference and training, where mixed-precision arithmetic is common. The B200 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 74.45 TFLOPS, making it superior for general compute tasks.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins in graphics-oriented workloads and practical workstation features. Its pixel rate of 323.2 GPixel/s is significantly higher than the B200’s 47.16 GPixel/s, suggesting better performance in rasterization and display output. The W7800 also has 128 ROPs, which is far more than the B200’s 24, making it more capable for traditional rendering pipelines. It includes display outputs, with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the B200 has no outputs, so the W7800 is the only choice for a visual workstation. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with modern graphics APIs, whereas the B200 lists no API support. The W7800 also has a lower TDP of 260 W, making it easier to cool and integrate into a standard desktop system, while the B200 requires a 1400 W power supply and an SXM module form factor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every key specification. The NVIDIA B200 uses the GB100 chip with the Blackwell architecture, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The B200 has 104,000 million transistors, compared to the W7800’s 57,700 million. The W7800 has a die size of 529 mm² and a transistor density of 109.1M per mm², while the B200 does not list these figures. Clock speeds differ significantly: the B200 has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost of 1965 MHz, while the W7800 has a base of 1895 MHz and a boost of 2525 MHz. Memory is a major split, with the B200 offering 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus versus the W7800’s 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Compute resources also vary: the B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores, while the W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray-tracing cores but no tensor cores. The B200’s FP32 performance is 74.45 TFLOPS and FP16 is 1,191.2 TFLOPS, while the W7800 achieves 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16. Power consumption is another differentiator, with the B200 rated at 1000 W and the W7800 at 260 W. The B200 uses an SXM Module slot width and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the W7800 is a dual-slot card with PCIe 4.0 x16. The W7800 has display outputs, while the B200 has none, and the W7800 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the B200 has no listed price.