AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

The NVIDIA B200 and AMD Radeon PRO W7900 occupy vastly different corners of the hardware spectrum, and the recorded benchmark data makes that separation clear. The Geekbench OpenCL results show the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379 points in the same test. That is a delta of 309.4%, meaning the B200 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL performance of the W7900. This is not a close contest in raw compute throughput, and the data suggests the two cards are aimed at entirely different workloads despite both being active products in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA B200 posts 345,482 points against 84,379 points for the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, a 309.4% advantage. To put that in perspective, the B200 sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no other recorded GPU outperforms it in this metric. The W7900, by contrast, lands at the 94th percentile, which is still a strong showing but far from the top.

The B200's nearest rivals in the database help contextualize its score. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is 6.6% ahead of the B200 with an average score of 369,831, while the NVIDIA H200 NVL trails by 3.2% at 334,891. The AMD Instinct MI300X comes in at 317,994, which is 8.6% behind the B200, and the NVIDIA L40S is 16.8% behind at 295,763. These deltas show that the B200 is not merely fast; it is competing at the very top of the database alongside other server-class accelerators. The W7900, in contrast, is surrounded by very different company. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II at 109,617, which is 1% ahead, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944, which is 2.8% ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X trails by 3.2% at 107,342, and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB leads by 3.2% at 114,395. These are workstation and mobile GPUs, not data center accelerators, and the performance bracket is an order of magnitude lower.

The OpenCL gap between the B200 and the W7900 is so large that it almost reads like an error, but the database confirms the numbers. The B200's average benchmark score is 345,482, while the W7900's average sits at 110,725, a figure pulled down by its weaker OpenCL result. The W7900 also has a Vulkan score of 137,070, but the B200 has no recorded Vulkan result, so no direct comparison is possible there. What the data does show is that in the one test where both cards appear, the B200 is in a different league entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs explains the performance gap better than any single specification. The NVIDIA B200 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 104,000 million transistors, a staggering figure that reflects its purpose as a server accelerator. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip based on RDNA 3.0, also built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 57,700 million transistors and a die size of 529 mm². The transistor density for the W7900 is recorded at 109.1 million per mm², while the B200 has no die size or density listed in the database.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The B200 carries 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096 bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7900 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384 bit bus, with 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is nearly five times the memory bandwidth on the B200, alongside double the capacity. The memory clocks also differ: the B200 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7900 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The higher effective speed of the GDDR6 modules does not compensate for the narrower bus and lower overall bandwidth.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 592 tensor cores. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, along with 96 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The B200's FP32 throughput is 74.45 TFLOPS, while its FP16 throughput reaches 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio. The W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The B200's pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, while the W7900 posts 479.0 GPixel/s and 958.1 GTexel/s. The ROP count on the W7900, at 192 versus 24, explains its much higher pixel rate despite the lower shading unit count.

Clock speeds also reflect different design philosophies. The B200 has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost of 1965 MHz. The W7900 starts at 1760 MHz base and boosts to 2495 MHz. The B200's lower base clock is typical of a high-power accelerator that relies on massive parallel throughput rather than raw clock speed. The W7900's higher clocks help it remain competitive in FP32 workloads despite fewer shaders.

Power and physical design are equally divergent. The B200 is rated at 1000 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1400 W, and it ships as an SXM Module with no display outputs. The W7900 is rated at 295 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 600 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and comes as a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width. It offers three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The B200 has no display outputs at all, reinforcing its role as a compute-only device.

The bus interfaces also differ: the B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. API support is only listed for the W7900, which includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 has no API listings in the database, which is consistent with a server accelerator that does not target graphics workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 309.4% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7900's score of 84,379.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The B200 delivers 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth from 90 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096 bit bus. The W7900 provides 864.0 GB/s from 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus. The B200 has roughly 4.7 times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The B200 reaches 74.45 TFLOPS in FP32, while the W7900 reaches 61.32 TFLOPS. The B200 is about 21.4% ahead in this metric.

Q: Does the W7900 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores. The B200 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The B200 has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The W7900 has a 295 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Can either card output video?

A: The W7900 has three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The B200 has no display outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The NVIDIA B200 is for users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL and are operating in a server context. Its 100th percentile ranking, 345,482 OpenCL score, and 4.10 TB/s memory bandwidth make it the obvious choice for large-scale acceleration tasks. The 1000 W TDP and SXM Module form factor mean it requires server infrastructure, not a desktop chassis. The W7900, with its 94th percentile ranking, 137,070 Vulkan score, and 61.32 TFLOPS FP32, is a workstation card for professionals who need display outputs, ray tracing cores, and a manageable 295 W TDP.

The B200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a massive margin, and it also leads in memory size, memory bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, tensor cores, FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture rate, and transistor count. The W7900 wins in ROPs, pixel rate, base clock, boost clock, and power efficiency, though the database does not provide a direct efficiency metric. The W7900 also offers ray tracing cores, which the B200 lacks entirely, and it supports display outputs, which the B200 does not.

For a researcher or data center operator running compute-heavy workloads, the B200 is the clear pick. For a workstation user who needs OpenGL, Vulkan, DirectX, and multiple display outputs, the W7900 is the only one of the two that can serve as a graphics card at all. The B200 cannot display anything, so any use case requiring a monitor rules it out automatically.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The B200 uses the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture, while the W7900 uses Navi 31 with RDNA 3.0. Transistor counts are 104,000 million for the B200 and 57,700 million for the W7900, with the W7900 having a 529 mm² die size and a transistor density of 109.1 million per mm². The B200 has no die size recorded.

Clocks differ in both base and boost. The B200 runs at 700 MHz base and 1965 MHz boost. The W7900 runs at 1760 MHz base and 2495 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective on the B200 versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective on the W7900.

Memory is a major differentiator. The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096 bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 18,944 on the B200 versus 6,144 on the W7900. TMUs are 592 versus 384, and ROPs are 24 versus 192. The B200 has 592 tensor cores, while the W7900 has none listed. The W7900 has 96 ray tracing cores, while the B200 has none listed.

Pixel rates are 47.16 GPixel/s for the B200 and 479.0 GPixel/s for the W7900. Texture rates are 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s. FP32 is 74.45 TFLOPS versus 61.32 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio for the B200 versus 61.32 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for the W7900.

TDP is 1000 W for the B200 and 295 W for the W7900. The B200 is an SXM Module with no power connectors listed and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The W7900 is triple-slot with two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The B200 has no display outputs; the W7900 has three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. API support is absent for the B200, while the W7900 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7900 has dimensions of 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm. The B200 has no dimensions recorded. The W7900 was released on 2023-05-25 and has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD. The B200 has no release date or launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B200 wins in raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and FP32 and FP16 throughput. Its OpenCL score of 345,482 is 309.4% ahead of the W7900, and its 74.45 TFLOPS FP32 output surpasses the W7900's 61.32 TFLOPS. The 90 GB HBM3e memory with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the W7900's 48 GB GDDR6 at 864.0 GB/s. The B200 also leads in texture rate at 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s, and its 592 tensor cores give it a dedicated path for tensor workloads that the W7900 lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in pixel throughput, clock speed, and practical workstation features. Its 479.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is over ten times the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s, thanks to 192 ROPs versus 24. Its boost clock of 2495 MHz is higher than the B200's 1965 MHz, and its base clock of 1760 MHz is far above the B200's 700 MHz. The W7900 also offers 96 ray tracing cores, display outputs, and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 cannot render to a screen, so any graphics or visualization workload falls to the W7900 by default.

Power consumption favors the W7900 as well. At 295 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU, it fits into standard workstation builds with two 8-pin connectors. The B200 demands 1000 W with a 1400 W suggested PSU and an SXM Module form factor, which is a server-only proposition. The W7900 also has a recorded release date of 2023-05-25 and a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the B200 has neither in the database.

The database's percentile rankings capture the split. The B200 sits at the 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database in its recorded benchmark. The W7900 sits at the 94th percentile, which is still excellent but places it in a different tier. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the B200 competes with the B300 SXM6 AC, H200 NVL, and Instinct MI300X, all server accelerators. The W7900 competes with the Radeon Pro Vega II, RTX A5500 Mobile, and Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, a mix of older workstation cards and mobile GPUs. These are different markets, and the benchmark data reflects that reality.