NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for both the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 and the NVIDIA B300 shows no head-to-head benchmark results, no wins for either part, and no average benchmark scores. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. This means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the specification and architecture data recorded for each product, rather than on measured performance deltas.

The B300 delivers a higher FP32 throughput at 76.99 TFLOPS compared to the B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS. That represents a 11.03% advantage for the B300 in single-precision compute. The texture fill rate also favors the B300, with 1,202.9 GTexel/s against 1,083.4 GTexel/s, a 11.03% lead. Pixel rate follows the same pattern: the B300 reaches 48.77 GPixel/s while the B200 SXM6 records 43.92 GPixel/s, again an 11.03% advantage.

The FP16 comparison is more dramatic, but it requires careful interpretation. The B200 SXM6 lists FP16 at 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32. The B300 lists FP16 at 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1), which indicates a 16:1 ratio of FP16 to FP32 operations. In raw recorded numbers, the B300's FP16 figure is 17.76 times higher than the B200 SXM6's FP16 figure. However, the 16:1 ratio on the B300 suggests that its FP16 peak is achieved through tensor core operations with a different instruction mix, while the B200 SXM6's 1:1 ratio implies a more conventional FP16 path. The database records these as distinct specifications, not as directly comparable benchmark outcomes.

Clock speeds also favor the B300. Its base clock is 1665 MHz and boost clock is 2032 MHz, while the B200 SXM6 runs at 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The boost advantage for the B300 is 11.04%. The base clock difference is substantial, but the B200 SXM6's very low base clock likely reflects a power management profile rather than a sustained operating point.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B300 records 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, which is 11.03% higher than the NVIDIA B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between the two?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 therefore has 25.00% more memory capacity and exactly double the memory bus width and bandwidth.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The B300 boosts to 2032 MHz, while the B200 SXM6 boosts to 1830 MHz. The B300's boost clock is 11.04% higher.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same shading unit and tensor core counts?

A: Yes. Both the B200 SXM6 and the B300 record 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores.

Q: What process node and foundry do these chips share?

A: Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip, and the B300 uses the GB110 chip.

Q: Are both GPUs the same physical form factor?

A: Both are SXM Modules with no display outputs. The B200 SXM6 uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, while the B300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 is built on the GB100 chip under the Blackwell architecture, while the B300 uses the GB110 chip under the Blackwell Ultra architecture. Both belong to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation and share the same 5 nm TSMC process node. The B200 SXM6 records a transistor count of 208,000 million on a die size of 1628 mm², yielding a transistor density of 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The B300 records 104,000 million transistors with no die size or density data recorded. The B200 SXM6 therefore carries exactly double the transistor count of the B300.

The FP16 execution ratio marks a key architectural distinction. The B200 SXM6 lists FP16 as 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning its FP16 peak matches its FP32 peak. The B300 lists FP16 as 1,231.8 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 peak is 16 times its FP32 peak. This indicates a different tensor core arrangement or instruction scheduling on the B300, allowing for a much higher peak FP16 rate in the recorded specifications.

The memory architecture differs substantially. The B200 SXM6 uses an 8192-bit bus, which is exactly double the B300's 4096-bit bus. Both use HBM3e memory at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed. The B200 SXM6's larger bus gives it 8.19 TB/s bandwidth versus 4.10 TB/s on the B300. The B200 SXM6 also holds more memory at 180 GB versus 144 GB.

The bus interface differs as well. The B200 SXM6 connects via PCIe 6.0 x16, while the B300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Neither GPU has display outputs, and both are SXM Modules.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded fields:

• Chip: GB100 (B200 SXM6) versus GB110 (B300)
• Architecture: Blackwell versus Blackwell Ultra
• Process Node: Both 5 nm, same foundry (TSMC)
• Transistors: 208,000 million versus 104,000 million
• Die Size: 1628 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor Density: 127.8M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base Clock: 120 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1830 MHz versus 2032 MHz
• Memory Size: 180 GB versus 144 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit versus 4096 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s versus 4.10 TB/s
• FP32: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS
• FP16: 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1)
• Pixel Rate: 43.92 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s
• TDP: 1000 W versus 1400 W
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 1800 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 6.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Release Date: 2024-10-31 versus 2025-09-10
• Launch MSRP: 34,999 USD versus not recorded

Identical fields include shading units (18,944), TMUs (592), ROPs (24), tensor cores (592), memory type (HBM3e), memory clock (2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective), slot width (SXM Module), display outputs (none), production status (Active), predecessor (Server Hopper), and successor (Server Rubin).

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split between the two GPUs based on workload priorities. The B300 leads in compute throughput metrics: FP32 is 11.03% higher, texture rate is 11.03% higher, and pixel rate is 11.03% higher. Its boost clock is 11.04% faster. For tasks that depend on raw FP32 shader throughput, the B300 is the stronger part.

The B200 SXM6 leads in memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. With 180 GB versus 144 GB, it offers 25.00% more memory. Its 8192-bit bus is double the B300's 4096-bit bus, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is exactly double the B300's 4.10 TB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound or bandwidth bound, such as large model inference or training with massive parameter sets, the B200 SXM6 holds the advantage.

The B300's FP16 specification of 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) dwarfs the B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) in absolute recorded terms. The 16:1 ratio indicates a fundamentally different FP16 execution path on the B300. If the application can use that 16:1 tensor path, the B300's FP16 peak is far higher. The B200 SXM6's 1:1 ratio suggests its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput, which is more modest.

The B200 SXM6 carries 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, while the B300 carries 104,000 million transistors with no die size recorded. The B200 SXM6's transistor count is double that of the B300. Despite the lower transistor count, the B300 achieves higher FP32, texture, and pixel rates. This suggests the B300's GB110 design achieves higher per-transistor efficiency in those specific metrics.

The B300 also draws more power. Its TDP is 1400 W versus 1000 W for the B200 SXM6, a 40.00% increase. The suggested PSU rises from 1400 W to 1800 W accordingly. The B200 SXM6's lower power envelope may be preferable in power-constrained deployments, while the B300's higher power budget aligns with its higher clock speeds and compute rates.

The B200 SXM6 released on 2024-10-31 with a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD. The B300 released on 2025-09-10 with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are active products.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 wins on compute throughput. Its FP32 of 76.99 TFLOPS exceeds the B200 SXM6 by 11.03%. Its texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 48.77 GPixel/s are each 11.03% higher. The boost clock of 2032 MHz is 11.04% faster. Applications that scale with shader throughput, texture mapping, or rasterization will see a measurable advantage on the B300. The FP16 figure of 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) also gives the B300 a much higher recorded peak for FP16 tensor workloads, provided the 16:1 ratio is usable.

The B200 SXM6 wins on memory resources. It holds 180 GB of HBM3e, which is 25.00% more than the B300's 144 GB. Its 8192-bit bus provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the B300's 4.10 TB/s. Workloads that are limited by memory capacity, such as hosting very large models or datasets, favor the B200 SXM6. Workloads that are limited by memory bandwidth, such as certain matrix operations or data movement patterns, also favor the B200 SXM6 due to the doubled bus width and throughput.

The B200 SXM6 wins on transistor count. With 208,000 million transistors versus 104,000 million, it has exactly twice the transistor budget. This may translate to more on-chip logic for specialized functions, though the recorded specifications do not show a compute advantage in FP32, texture, or pixel rates. The die size of 1628 mm² is recorded only for the B200 SXM6.

The B200 SXM6 wins on power efficiency per recorded metric. It consumes 1000 W TDP versus 1400 W for the B300. Its FP32 per watt is 69.34 TFLOPS divided by 1000 W, while the B300's is 76.99 TFLOPS divided by 1400 W. The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS per kilowatt, and the B300 delivers 55.00 TFLOPS per kilowatt. The B200 SXM6 is therefore more efficient in FP32 per unit of power, despite having lower absolute FP32. Similarly, its memory bandwidth per watt is higher: 8.19 TB/s at 1000 W versus 4.10 TB/s at 1400 W.

The B300 wins on peak FP16 specification. The recorded 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) is 17.76 times the B200 SXM6's 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). This is the single largest recorded difference between the two parts. If the target workload can exploit the 16:1 FP16 path, the B300 offers a far higher peak for that precision.

The B300 wins on clock speed. Its base clock of 1665 MHz and boost clock of 2032 MHz are both higher than the B200 SXM6's 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The boost advantage is 11.04%. The B200 SXM6's 120 MHz base clock is unusually low and likely reflects a power-saving idle state rather than a sustained operating frequency.

Both share identical core counts. Each has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The difference in FP32 throughput therefore comes entirely from clock speed, not from core count. The B300's higher boost clock explains its 11.03% FP32 lead over the B200 SXM6.