Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Both parts register an average benchmark score of 0 and sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning neither has accumulated measurable performance data from standardized test suites. This absence of recorded benchmark scores limits direct quantitative comparison, but the underlying specifications and architectural parameters provide a basis for evaluating relative capability.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 and 69.34 TFLOPS of FP16, also at 1:1. In raw floating-point throughput, the B200 leads by roughly 32% in both precisions. The Intel part reaches a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s, while the B200 records 1,083.4 GTexel/s, giving the Intel GPU a 51% advantage in texture fill operations. Pixel throughput tells the opposite story: the Intel part shows 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROP units configured, while the B200 produces 43.92 GPixel/s from its 24 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive split. The Intel Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 3.28 TB/s. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on the same 8192-bit interface, reaching 8.19 TB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. The B200 also carries more memory capacity, 180 GB versus 128 GB, a 40% increase. Clock behavior differs substantially: the Intel GPU runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost, while the B200 operates at 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The B200's boost clock is 14% higher, but its base clock is far lower, reflecting a different power management profile.

Shading unit counts favor the B200 at 18,944 versus 16,384, a 16% advantage. The Intel part counters with 1024 TMUs against 592 TMUs, a 73% lead in texture mapping hardware. Ray tracing cores present only on the Intel side at 128 units; the B200 lists no RT core count. Tensor cores appear only on the B200 at 592 units, while the Intel part shows no tensor core specification. Neither GPU has display outputs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, whereas the B200 reports N/A across all graphics APIs, reflecting its compute-first orientation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to 52.43 TFLOPS for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550. The B200 holds a 32% advantage in single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: How do memory bandwidth and capacity compare?

A: The B200 provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from 180 GB of HBM3e memory. The Intel Max 1550 provides 3.28 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e. The B200 leads by 2.5x in bandwidth and 40% in capacity.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The Intel Max 1550 has 1024 TMUs, versus 592 TMUs on the B200. This corresponds to a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s for Intel and 1,083.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 51% lead for Intel.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: The Intel Max 1550 includes 128 ray tracing cores but lists no tensor cores. The B200 includes 592 tensor cores but lists no ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel Max 1550 has a TDP of 600 W and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: How do the bus interfaces differ?

A: The Intel Max 1550 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Both are OAM or SXM modules respectively, with no display connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins in compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, shading units, tensor cores, and pixel rendering. Its 69.34 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 positions it ahead for dense floating-point workloads such as large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, and high-precision compute tasks. The 180 GB HBM3e pool with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth supports very large model weights and data sets that exceed the Intel GPU's 128 GB capacity. The 592 tensor cores give the B200 a dedicated path for matrix operations, a feature completely absent from the Intel specification. The B200's 24 ROPs and 43.92 GPixel/s pixel rate, while modest, still exceed the Intel part's 0 MPixel/s output, making the B200 the only one of the two capable of any rasterization work.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in texture processing and ray tracing. Its 1024 TMUs and 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate represent a 51% advantage over the B200, which matters for workloads that sample textures heavily, such as rendering pipelines, image processing, and certain scientific visualization tasks. The 128 ray tracing cores are unique to the Intel part; the B200 lists none. For ray-traced rendering or ray-based simulation, the Intel GPU offers hardware acceleration that the B200 does not specify. The Intel part also operates at a lower 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, versus 1000 W and 1400 W for the B200, indicating a lower power envelope per module.

The Intel GPU's 16,384 shading units, while fewer than the B200's 18,944, still provide substantial parallel compute. Its 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 is not negligible; it represents roughly 76% of the B200's throughput. For workloads that are texture-bound or ray-tracing-bound, the Intel part's specialized hardware gives it an edge that raw compute numbers do not capture. The B200's higher boost clock of 1830 MHz versus 1600 MHz contributes to its compute lead, but the Intel part's higher base clock of 900 MHz versus 120 MHz suggests more consistent performance under sustained load without relying on boost behavior.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Max 1550 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 |

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

| Process node | 10 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | 208,000 million |

| Die size | 1280 mm² | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor density | 78.1M / mm² | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 120 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1600 MHz | 1830 MHz |

| Memory size | 128 GB | 180 GB |

| Memory type | HBM2e | HBM3e |

| Memory clock | 1600 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 3.28 TB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading units | 16,384 | 18,944 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 592 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| RT cores | 128 | None listed |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 592 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 43.92 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 1,083.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.43 TFLOPS | 69.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 1000 W |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 1400 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | SXM Module |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Graphics APIs | DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6 | N/A for all |

| Release date | 2023-01-09 | 2024-10-31 |

| Predecessor | None listed | Server Hopper |

| Successor | H3C Graphics | Server Rubin |

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Generation 12.5 architecture at Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip based on the Blackwell architecture at TSMC's 5 nm process. The fabrication difference is substantial: the B200 packs 208,000 million transistors into a 1628 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 127.8M / mm². The Intel part contains 100,000 million transistors across a 1280 mm² die, yielding 78.1M / mm². The B200 thus integrates more than twice the transistors with a 64% higher density.

Memory architecture diverges at the HBM generation level. Intel uses HBM2e with a 3.2 Gbps effective data rate, while NVIDIA uses HBM3e at 8 Gbps effective. Both use an 8192-bit bus, but the newer HBM3e standard delivers the 2.5x bandwidth advantage. The B200's memory clock of 2000 MHz exceeds the Intel part's 1600 MHz, further widening the bandwidth gap. Capacity also differs: 180 GB on the B200 versus 128 GB on Intel.

Compute architecture shows complementary specializations. The Intel GPU integrates 128 ray tracing cores, making it suitable for ray-traced workloads, but it has no tensor core specification. The B200 integrates 592 tensor cores but lists no ray tracing cores, indicating a design focused on matrix-heavy AI and HPC tasks rather than graphics rendering. Shader organization also differs: Intel fields 16,384 shading units with 1024 TMUs, while NVIDIA fields 18,944 shading units with 592 TMUs. The Intel ratio of TMUs to shading units is roughly 1:16, versus roughly 1:32 for the B200, explaining the Intel part's texture rate advantage. The B200's 24 ROPs give it pixel output capability that the Intel part entirely lacks, as its ROP count is 0.

The power delivery and integration formats differ as well. Intel specifies a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, while NVIDIA specifies 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU. Both use module form factors, OAM for Intel and SXM for NVIDIA, with no display outputs on either. Bus interfaces reflect generational timing: Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The release dates also differ by nearly two years, with Intel launching in January 2023 and NVIDIA in October 2024. NVIDIA's predecessor is listed as Server Hopper and successor as Server Rubin, while Intel lists no predecessor and names H3C Graphics as its successor.