AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition vs NVIDIA B200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is anything but close. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482 points, while the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition manages 76,111 points. That translates to a 353.9% advantage for the B200, meaning the B200 delivers roughly 4.5 times the OpenCL performance of the Vega Frontier Edition. This is a generational chasm, not a competitive race.

To put that gap in context, the B200 sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which means no recorded GPU scores higher. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, scores 369,831, which is 6.6% ahead of the B200, so the B200 is not even the top of its own immediate family. Still, the B200 is 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891), 8.6% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 16.8% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763). Those are the only rivals recorded for the B200, and every one of them is a modern data center part.

The Vega Frontier Edition, by contrast, sits at the 91st percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests is 73,370. Its nearest rivals are much closer in performance: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 72,379 (1.4% behind), the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 72,098 (1.8% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 71,768 (2.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE scores 70,829 (3.6% behind). The Vega Frontier Edition is the leader of that small pack, but the margins are tiny, measured in single-digit percentage points rather than multiples.

The head-to-head comparison shows a single win for the B200 and zero wins for the Vega Frontier Edition. That is not a balanced contest. The B200 is a server accelerator from the Blackwell generation, while the Vega Frontier Edition is an end-of-life workstation card from 2017. The data records no test where the Vega Frontier Edition beats the B200, and given the scale of the OpenCL delta, none would be expected.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins every recorded comparison. Its single benchmark entry, Geekbench OpenCL, is a compute-heavy workload that stresses raw floating-point throughput and memory bandwidth, and the B200 dominates there. The B200 also holds the 100th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database, which means its recorded score is the highest observed in any test. For workloads that resemble OpenCL compute, such as large-scale data processing, AI inference, or scientific simulation, the data shows the B200 is in a class of its own.

The Vega Frontier Edition wins nothing in the head-to-head comparison, but that does not mean it has no role. It scores 72,061 in Geekbench Metal, 76,111 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 71,937 in Geekbench Vulkan. These three scores are close to each other, with a spread of only about 4,174 points between the lowest and highest. That consistency suggests the Vega Frontier Edition is balanced across different API environments, which is useful for legacy workstation applications that rely on Metal, Vulkan, or OpenCL. Its nearest rivals, the Radeon Pro Vega 64, TITAN X Pascal, RX 6650M, and RX 6600 LE, all fall within 3.6% of its average score, so the Vega Frontier Edition is competitive within its own performance tier.

The B200, by contrast, has no recorded Vulkan or Metal scores, only OpenCL. The data does not indicate how it behaves in those APIs. For buyers who need a specific API that the B200 has not been measured in, the Vega Frontier Edition at least has recorded results. That is a narrow advantage, but it is the only one the data supports.

Architecture Differences

The B200 is built on the GB100 chip using the Blackwell architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 104,000 million transistors. The Vega Frontier Edition uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors and a die size of 495 mm². The transistor density difference is stark: the B200 has no recorded density figure, but the Vega Frontier Edition has a density of 25.3M transistors per mm². The B200's transistor count is over eight times higher, and it is built on a process node three generations newer (5 nm versus 14 nm).

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The Vega Frontier Edition uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s. The B200 has more than five times the memory capacity and roughly 8.5 times the bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the B200 runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the Vega Frontier Edition runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective).

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, along with 592 tensor cores. The Vega Frontier Edition has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no tensor cores. The B200's pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s, lower than the Vega Frontier Edition's 102.4 GPixel/s, but its texture rate is much higher at 1,163.3 GTexel/s versus 409.6 GTexel/s. The B200 delivers 74.45 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 1,191.2 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (16:1 ratio). The Vega Frontier Edition delivers 13.11 TFLOPS FP32 and 26.21 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The B200 is roughly 5.7 times faster in FP32 and 45 times faster in FP16.

Power and physical design also separate the two. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and requires a 1400 W suggested PSU. It is an SXM module with no display outputs and no power connectors listed, designed for server chassis integration. The Vega Frontier Edition has a TDP of 300 W, a 700 W suggested PSU, a dual-slot form factor, and two 8-pin power connectors. It includes 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it usable as a display adapter. The B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Vega Frontier Edition uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Vega Frontier Edition measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The B200 has no recorded dimensions.

API support also differs. The Vega Frontier Edition has recorded DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support. The B200 has no recorded API support in the database. The Vega Frontier Edition was released on 2017-06-26, while the B200 has no recorded release date. Production status also differs: the B200 is Active, while the Vega Frontier Edition is End-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The NVIDIA B200 is a compute monster for modern server workloads. Its OpenCL score of 345,482 is 353.9% higher than the Vega Frontier Edition's 76,111, and it holds the 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its nearest documented rival, the B300 SXM6 AC, is 6.6% faster, which suggests the B200 is near the top of the current server stack but not the absolute peak. Still, the B200 beats the H200 NVL by 3.2%, the MI300X by 8.6%, and the L40S by 16.8%. Anyone building a data center node for compute-heavy tasks should look at the B200 class of hardware, not a 2017 workstation card.

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is an end-of-life product. Its average benchmark score of 73,370 places it at the 91st percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 3.6%. That means it is competitive with other GPUs from its era, like the Radeon Pro Vega 64 and TITAN X Pascal, but it is not in the same performance universe as the B200. Its 16 GB of HBM2 and 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth are adequate for legacy workstation tasks, and its display outputs plus Metal and Vulkan support make it usable in conventional desktop or workstation setups. The B200 has no display outputs and no recorded API support beyond OpenCL, so it is not a replacement for a card that needs to drive monitors.

The verdict is simple. If the workload is modern compute, AI, or high-bandwidth data processing, the B200 is the choice, provided the power and cooling infrastructure can handle a 1000 W TDP. If the workload is legacy workstation rendering, API compatibility testing, or any task requiring display output, the Vega Frontier Edition still has a place, but only in systems where its 300 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 interface are acceptable. The B200 wins the head-to-head by every recorded metric, and there is no benchmark in the database where the Vega Frontier Edition comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 than the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition in OpenCL?

A: The B200 scores 345,482 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Vega Frontier Edition scores 76,111, giving the B200 a 353.9% advantage.

Q: What is the B200's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The B200 is at the 100th percentile, meaning no recorded GPU in the database scores higher.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition beat any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes. Its average score of 73,370 is 1.4% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega 64, 1.8% ahead of the TITAN X Pascal, 2.2% ahead of the RX 6650M, and 3.6% ahead of the RX 6600 LE.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The Vega Frontier Edition uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Vega Frontier Edition support display outputs?

A: Yes, it has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The B200 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Vega Frontier Edition has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA B200 | AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1382 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 4,096 |

| TMUs | 592 | 256 |

| ROPs | 24 | 64 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 74.45 TFLOPS | 13.11 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 26.21 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 300 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | Not recorded | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | Not recorded | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2017-06-26 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 999 USD |