Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC. The Intel part has no benchmark entries, while the NVIDIA part has a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 369831. This places the B300 SXM6 AC at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, indicating it outperforms every other recorded GPU in that specific test.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's OpenCL score of 369831 puts it 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345482. Against the NVIDIA H200 NVL, the B300 SXM6 AC leads by 10.4%, with the H200 NVL scoring 334891. The AMD Instinct MI300X trails by 16.3%, recording 317994, while the NVIDIA L40S sits 25% behind with a score of 295763. These delta percentages show a clear performance hierarchy among the nearest rivals, with the B300 SXM6 AC at the top.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no recorded benchmark scores, no average benchmark score, and no nearest rivals listed in the database. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50, which is the median position, but this derives from a lack of measured data rather than actual performance parity. The absence of benchmark entries means no comparative analysis against the NVIDIA part can be made from measured results.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip based on Generation 12.5 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die measures 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 78.1 million per mm². The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip based on Blackwell Ultra architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its die is larger at 1628 mm², and it packs 208,000 million transistors, achieving a density of 127.8 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel part runs at a 900 MHz base clock and boosts to 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a 1665 MHz base clock and boosts to 2032 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the Intel part using 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA part using 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations show major differences. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem carries 128 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.21 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory across the same 8192-bit bus width, but delivers 8.19 TB/s, which is more than double the bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has more than twice the memory capacity and a newer memory type.

Compute resources are organized differently. The Intel part has 16384 shading units, 1024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, with 128 RT cores and no tensor core count listed. Its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with 592 tensor cores and no RT core count listed. Its pixel rate is 48.77 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,202.9 GTexel/s.

Floating point performance favors the NVIDIA part. The Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The NVIDIA part delivers 76.99 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), which is about 47% higher than the Intel part's FP32 figure.

Power requirements differ significantly. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has a TDP of 2400 W, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a TDP of 1100 W. The suggested PSU for the Intel part is 2800 W, versus 1500 W for the NVIDIA part. The Intel part uses a dual-slot form factor with a single 16-pin power connector, while the NVIDIA part comes as an SXM module with no power connector listed.

Bus interfaces differ as well. The Intel part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Both parts have no display outputs. API support shows a notable split: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan listed, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Release dates place the parts in different generations. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem was released on 2023-01-09, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC was released on 2025-09-10. The Intel part's successor is listed as H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear divergence in measured performance and architectural positioning. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a benchmark score of 369831 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals trail by 7% to 25%, which indicates a substantial performance lead over the next tier of data center accelerators. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no measured benchmark score, so no direct performance comparison can be made from the database.

For raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA part's FP32 and FP16 figures of 76.99 TFLOPS exceed the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth heavily favors the NVIDIA part at 8.19 TB/s versus 3.21 TB/s, and memory capacity favors it at 288 GB versus 128 GB. The NVIDIA part also uses a more advanced 5 nm process with higher transistor density, 127.8 million per mm² versus 78.1 million per mm².

The Intel part does hold advantages in specific areas. Its texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part's 1,202.9 GTexel/s. It has more TMUs at 1024 versus 592, and it includes 128 RT cores while the NVIDIA part lists none. Its power draw of 2400 W is higher, but its form factor as a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card may suit certain server configurations, while the NVIDIA part is an SXM module using PCIe 6.0 x16.

The data indicates that the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is the stronger choice for measured compute workloads, particularly those that scale with FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem remains an active product with no benchmark data recorded, so its relative standing cannot be quantified from the database. Users with workloads that depend on texture throughput or ray tracing may find the Intel part's specifications relevant, but no measured evidence supports a performance claim.

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC scores 369831 in Geekbench OpenCL. It leads the NVIDIA B200 (345482) by 7%, the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334891) by 10.4%, the AMD Instinct MI300X (317994) by 16.3%, and the NVIDIA L40S (295763) by 25%.

Q: What memory configurations do the two parts use?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses 128 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC delivers 76.99 TFLOPS for FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS. Both parts maintain a 1:1 ratio for FP16.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Ponte Vecchio chip uses a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The NVIDIA GB110 chip uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die.

Q: Which part has a higher texture rate?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s, which exceeds the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's 1,202.9 GTexel/s. The Intel part also has more TMUs at 1024 versus 592.

Q: What is the power requirement for each part?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has a TDP of 2400 W and a suggested PSU of 2800 W. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a TDP of 1100 W and a suggested PSU of 1500 W.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins on measured compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 369831 places it at the 100th percentile, which is the top position in the database. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is more than double the Intel part's 3.21 TB/s, and memory capacity of 288 GB is more than double the Intel part's 128 GB. The NVIDIA part also carries more shading units (18944 versus 16384) and includes 592 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not list. Its smaller TDP of 1100 W versus 2400 W indicates lower power draw for the same form factor class.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins on specific architectural features. Its texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s is 36% higher than the NVIDIA part's 1,202.9 GTexel/s. It has 1024 TMUs versus 592, and it includes 128 RT cores while the NVIDIA part lists none. Its dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 form factor with a 16-pin connector may fit different server infrastructure compared to the NVIDIA SXM module with PCIe 6.0 x16. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all APIs, which could matter for certain software stacks.

The release timeline shows the Intel part arrived earlier on 2023-01-09, while the NVIDIA part came later on 2025-09-10. The Intel part's successor is H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. The Intel part remains active in production status, as does the NVIDIA part.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two parts differ.

| Field | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC |

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

| Chip | Ponte Vecchio | GB110 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Blackwell Ultra |

| Generation | Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) | Server Blackwell (Bxx) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | 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 | 1665 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1565 MHz, 3.1 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | HBM3e |

| Memory Bandwidth | 3.21 TB/s | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 592 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 128 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 48.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 1,202.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.43 TFLOPS | 76.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 2400 W | 1100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 2800 W | 1500 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | null | N/A |

| Dimensions | 267 mm, 10.5 inches length | null |

| Release Date | 2023-01-09 | 2025-09-10 |

| Predecessor | null | Server Hopper |

| Successor | H3C Graphics | Server Rubin |

| Benchmark Score | none recorded | 369831 (Geekbench OpenCL) |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 100 |