NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA’s B200 SXM6 and GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile sit at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The B200 SXM6 is a server accelerator built on the Blackwell architecture, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is an end-of-life laptop GPU from the Ampere generation. The database records no shared benchmarks between them, so direct numerical comparisons rely on their individual specifications and the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s recorded scores. The B200 SXM6 has no benchmark entries in the database, placing it at the 50th percentile across all GPUs with an average score of 0. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, by contrast, holds a 44th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 8,746 across eight tests.

The Verdict

The data separates these two clearly by intended use. The B200 SXM6 delivers server-class compute with 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, 180 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. It targets workloads that demand massive parallel throughput and memory capacity, such as large-scale AI training or scientific simulations. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, with 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, and 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, suits lightweight mobile tasks like content creation or casual gaming on a laptop. Its recorded PassMark G3D score of 11,664 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,998 show it handles mainstream graphics workloads, but it sits only 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (average score 8,686) and 0% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (average score 8,743) in the nearest rivals list.

For buyers choosing between these, the decision hinges on form factor and workload. The B200 SXM6 is a 1000 W SXM module with no display outputs, requiring a 1400 W suggested power supply and a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface. It is not a graphics card for a desktop or workstation monitor. The RTX 3050 A Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent outputs, a 45 W TDP, and no power connectors. It fits into laptops, not servers. The B200 SXM6’s 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die dwarf the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, but that scale comes with a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, which the database lists once. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip on a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on an 8 nm process from Samsung. The B200 SXM6’s transistor density reaches 127.8 million per mm², compared to 43.5 million per mm² for the RTX 3050 A Mobile, reflecting the newer fabrication node and larger design. The B200 SXM6 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, succeeding Server Hopper, with its successor listed as Server Rubin. The RTX 3050 A Mobile belongs to the GeForce 30 Mobile generation, succeeding GeForce 20 Mobile, with no successor recorded.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The B200 SXM6 packs 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s. The B200 SXM6’s memory clock runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s memory clock is 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The B200 SXM6’s base clock is 120 MHz with a boost clock of 1830 MHz; the RTX 3050 A Mobile starts at 1065 MHz and boosts to 1343 MHz.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores, with only 24 ROPs. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1,792 shading units, 56 TMUs, 56 tensor cores, and 32 ROPs, plus 14 ray tracing cores, which the B200 SXM6 does not list. The B200 SXM6’s pixel rate is 43.92 GPixel/s, nearly identical to the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 42.98 GPixel/s, but its texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s far exceeds the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 75.21 GTexel/s. API support also separates them: the B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins in raw throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 and FP16 performance both hit 69.34 TFLOPS, a 14.4 times multiple over the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 4.813 TFLOPS in each precision. Texture rate shows a similar gap: 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s. Bandwidth is 42.7 times higher on the B200 SXM6, at 8.19 TB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. The B200 SXM6 also leads in shading units (18,944 vs 1,792), TMUs (592 vs 56), and tensor cores (592 vs 56). Its 180 GB memory capacity is 45 times that of the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 4 GB. These specs position the B200 SXM6 for data-center workloads where memory-bound and compute-bound tasks dominate, such as training large neural networks or processing massive datasets.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins in practical graphics features and power efficiency. It has 32 ROPs versus the B200 SXM6’s 24, a higher pixel rate in relative terms (42.98 GPixel/s on a far smaller GPU), and 14 ray tracing cores, which the B200 SXM6 lacks entirely. Its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for gaming and consumer applications, whereas the B200 SXM6 lists no graphics API support. Power consumption favors the mobile part: 45 W versus 1000 W, a 22.2 times difference. The RTX 3050 A Mobile’s production status is end-of-life, while the B200 SXM6 is active, but the mobile GPU’s lower power envelope and portable form factor (IGP) make it the only option for battery-powered devices.

Benchmark data for the RTX 3050 A Mobile shows its strongest wins in DirectX 9 and G2D tests. It scores 152 in PassMark DirectX 9, 526 in PassMark G2D, and 11,664 in PassMark G3D. Its PassMark GPU compute score is 4,419, and its Geekbench OpenCL score is 52,998. The B200 SXM6 has no benchmark scores in the database, so its wins are inferred from specifications rather than measured results. The nearest rivals for the RTX 3050 A Mobile reinforce its mid-range standing: it matches the GTX 460 v2 (0% delta), edges the Quadro P2200 by 0.7%, and trails the AMD Radeon R9 M265X by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 by 1.3%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The B200 SXM6 offers 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The RTX 3050 A Mobile provides 192.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 A Mobile support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 14 ray tracing cores. The B200 SXM6 does not list any ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What is the power requirement for each GPU?

A: The B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has a TDP of 45 W and no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU is better for gaming?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its PassMark G3D score is 11,664. The B200 SXM6 lists no graphics API support and has no display outputs.

Q: How does the RTX 3050 A Mobile compare to its closest rivals?

A: It scores 8,746 on average, matching the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743, 0% delta), beating the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 0.7% delta), and trailing the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, 1.2% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, 1.3% delta).

Q: What is the release timeline for both GPUs?

A: The B200 SXM6 was released on 2024-10-31, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile was released on 2023-12-31. The B200 SXM6 is active in production, and the RTX 3050 A Mobile is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database, so the comparison relies on the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s measured scores against the B200 SXM6’s specifications. The largest win for the B200 SXM6 appears in FP32 compute: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS, a 14.4 times advantage. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with both GPUs achieving 1:1 ratios, meaning the B200 SXM6 also delivers 69.34 TFLOPS in FP16 against the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 4.813 TFLOPS. Texture rate shows an even wider gap, as the B200 SXM6 reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s compared to 75.21 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth provides the most dramatic separation. The B200 SXM6’s 8.19 TB/s is 42.7 times the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s 192.0 GB/s. Capacity follows suit: 180 GB versus 4 GB, a 45 times difference. The B200 SXM6 also has 10.6 times more shading units (18,944 vs 1,792) and 10.6 times more TMUs (592 vs 56). Tensor core counts match that ratio, with 592 on the B200 SXM6 and 56 on the RTX 3050 A Mobile. Pixel rate is the closest specification, with the B200 SXM6 at 43.92 GPixel/s and the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 42.98 GPixel/s, a difference of 0.94 GPixel/s.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile’s wins are concentrated in graphics-specific features. It has 32 ROPs against the B200 SXM6’s 24, a 33% higher count. It also includes 14 ray tracing cores, which the B200 SXM6 does not list. API compatibility favors the mobile GPU, as it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 SXM6 records N/A for all three. Power efficiency is another clear win: the RTX 3050 A Mobile draws 45 W, 22.2 times less than the B200 SXM6’s 1000 W. The RTX 3050 A Mobile’s PassMark DirectX 9 score of 152 and DirectX 11 score of 94 show it handles legacy APIs, while its DirectX 12 score of 55 and DirectX 10 score of 61 indicate moderate modern performance. Its PassMark G2D score of 526 reflects 2D rendering capability, and its PassMark G3D score of 11,664 places it in the mid-range tier among the database’s recorded GPUs.

The B200 SXM6’s lack of benchmark scores leaves its real-world performance unmeasured in the database, but its specifications alone position it as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics card. The RTX 3050 A Mobile’s nearest rivals confirm its performance envelope: it is essentially tied with the GTX 460 v2, 0.7% ahead of the Quadro P2200, and within 1.3% of two AMD mobile and workstation parts. Those deltas are small, suggesting the RTX 3050 A Mobile occupies a narrow band of performance around the 8,700 to 8,900 average score range. The B200 SXM6, with no rivals listed and a 50th percentile placement, remains an outlier in the database, defined more by its extreme memory and compute figures than by any comparative benchmark results.