NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q. Both entries report an average benchmark score of zero, a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs, and empty benchmark result arrays. Consequently, no measured performance deltas, win counts, or percentage differences exist in the database for this pairing. The comparison must therefore rest entirely on the architectural specifications, memory configurations, and feature sets recorded for each part.

The B200 SXM6 delivers a FP32 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS and a matching FP16 rate of 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). The RTX 4050 Max-Q provides 8.218 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The B200 SXM6 thus computes at approximately 8.44 times the raw floating-point rate of the mobile part, a figure derived directly from the recorded values. Texture fill rate shows a similar gap: the B200 SXM6 achieves 1,083.4 GTexel/s against 128.4 GTexel/s for the RTX 4050 Max-Q, which is roughly 8.44 times higher. Pixel rate, however, favors the smaller part: the RTX 4050 Max-Q reaches 77.04 GPixel/s, while the B200 SXM6 records 43.92 GPixel/s. This inversion stems from the B200 SXM6 having only 24 ROPs compared to 48 ROPs on the RTX 4050 Max-Q, despite the former possessing 18,944 shading units versus 2,560.

Memory bandwidth separates the two decisively. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit interface, producing 192.0 GB/s. The B200 SXM6 bandwidth is approximately 42.66 times larger. Clock behavior also diverges: the B200 SXM6 runs a base of 120 MHz and boosts to 1830 MHz, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q starts at 1140 MHz and boosts to 1605 MHz. The mobile GPU's higher base clock reflects its smaller, more thermally manageable design.

Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 integrates 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8 million per mm². The RTX 4050 Max-Q packs 18,900 million transistors onto 159 mm², a density of 118.9 million per mm². The B200 SXM6's die is roughly 10.24 times larger by area and carries about 11 times more transistors. The density figures show the B200 SXM6 is slightly more efficient in packing transistors per area, likely due to the HBM3e stacks and larger compute arrays.

Tensor cores differ in count and role. The B200 SXM6 has 592 tensor cores, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q has 80. Ray tracing hardware exists only on the RTX 4050 Max-Q, which includes 20 RT cores; the B200 SXM6 records no RT core count. Texture mapping units: 592 on the B200 SXM6 versus 80 on the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Shading units favor the server part by a factor of 7.4. The RTX 4050 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the B200 SXM6 lists N/A for all three APIs, reflecting its lack of display outputs and its role as a compute accelerator.

Power envelopes show the intended use cases. The B200 SXM6 draws 1000 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q operates at 35 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The B200 SXM6 uses an SXM module slot, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for portable devices. The bus interfaces: PCIe 6.0 x16 for the B200 SXM6, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Display outputs: none on the B200 SXM6, portable-device-dependent on the RTX 4050 Max-Q.

The Verdict

The database shows two NVIDIA parts with fundamentally different design goals. The B200 SXM6 targets server-side compute workloads where massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high FP32/FP16 throughput matter. Its 180 GB HBM3e pool, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, and 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate position it for data-center tasks such as large-model inference, scientific simulation, or high-performance computing. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms that the B200 SXM6 is not intended for rendering to a screen.

The RTX 4050 Max-Q serves portable devices. Its 35 W envelope, IGP form factor, 6 GB GDDR6, and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth suit thin-and-light laptops. The presence of 20 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 means it can handle real-time graphics workloads, including ray-traced effects, within a constrained power budget. Its pixel rate of 77.04 GPixel/s exceeds the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s, which indicates better suitability for rasterization-heavy tasks despite the far lower compute throughput.

A user selecting between these parts should rely on the recorded data. The B200 SXM6 wins every compute-oriented metric except pixel rate and ROP count. The RTX 4050 Max-Q wins on graphics API compatibility, ray tracing capability, pixel throughput, and power efficiency by a factor of 28.57 in TDP (1000 W versus 35 W). The B200 SXM6 has no measured benchmarks and no rivals listed, meaning no empirical performance comparisons exist in the database. The decision reduces to workload type: server-side computation versus mobile graphics. The B200 SXM6 cannot drive a display, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q lacks the memory and bandwidth for large-scale compute. Neither part can substitute for the other in its respective domain, based strictly on the recorded specifications.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip under the Blackwell architecture, classified in the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip under Ada Lovelace, classified in the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. Both employ a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts differ by an order of magnitude: 208,000 million for the B200 SXM6 versus 18,900 million for the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Die sizes are 1628 mm² and 159 mm² respectively. Transistor density is slightly higher on the B200 SXM6 at 127.8M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm².

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The B200 SXM6 uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth across 180 GB. The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth across 6 GB. The memory clock is recorded as 2000 MHz for both, but the effective data rate differs: 8 Gbps for the B200 SXM6 versus 16 Gbps for the RTX 4050 Max-Q. The B200 SXM6 compensates with a vastly wider bus. The RTX 4050 Max-Q relies on higher per-pin data rates.

Compute resources show distinct priorities. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 80 tensor cores, and 20 RT cores. The B200 SXM6 allocates far more silicon to shader and tensor work, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q dedicates resources to ray tracing and rasterization. The B200 SXM6 has no RT core count recorded, which the database lists as null. The RTX 4050 Max-Q's 20 RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature absent from the B200 SXM6's specification sheet.

Clock speeds reflect thermal and power constraints. The B200 SXM6 runs a base clock of 120 MHz, extremely low, with a boost of 1830 MHz. The RTX 4050 Max-Q runs a base of 1140 MHz and boosts to 1605 MHz. The B200 SXM6's low base clock likely stems from its enormous die and 1000 W power envelope, where idle or lightly loaded states require minimal switching activity to manage heat. The RTX 4050 Max-Q's higher base clock suits its mobile role, where the GPU must respond quickly to interactive workloads.

The API support tells a clear story. The B200 SXM6 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The RTX 4050 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q's outputs are portable-device-dependent. The B200 SXM6 uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, the RTX 4050 Max-Q uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Slot widths: SXM Module for the B200 SXM6, IGP for the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Power connectors: none for the RTX 4050 Max-Q, null for the B200 SXM6. The B200 SXM6 has a suggested PSU of 1400 W; the RTX 4050 Max-Q has none recorded.

Release timing differs. The B200 SXM6 launched on 2024-10-31, with a predecessor of Server Hopper and a successor of Server Rubin. The RTX 4050 Max-Q launched on 2023-01-02, with a predecessor of GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the RTX 4050 Max-Q has no launch MSRP recorded. Production status for both is Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q records 8.218 TFLOPS FP32. The B200 SXM6 is approximately 8.44 times faster by this metric.

Q: Does the RTX 4050 Max-Q support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 20 RT cores. The B200 SXM6 has no RT core count listed in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Max-Q uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q achieves 77.04 GPixel/s, exceeding the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 48 ROPs versus 24 ROPs on the B200 SXM6.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Can the B200 SXM6 output video to a display?

A: No, it has no display outputs. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has outputs that are portable-device-dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins in all compute-density metrics. FP32 and FP16 throughput at 69.34 TFLOPS each gives it an 8.44-fold advantage over the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Texture fill rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 128.4 GTexel/s places it ahead by the same factor. Memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s dwarfs the 192.0 GB/s of the RTX 4050 Max-Q. Memory capacity of 180 GB versus 6 GB means the B200 SXM6 can hold far larger datasets in local memory, reducing the need for host-side transfers. The 592 tensor cores versus 80 provide a substantial edge for matrix operations, though no benchmark scores confirm real-world gains. The 8192-bit memory bus, PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, and 1000 W power budget indicate the B200 SXM6 is designed for sustained, heavy compute workloads in servers.

The RTX 4050 Max-Q wins in graphics-specific and mobile-specific areas. Pixel rate of 77.04 GPixel/s exceeds the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s, which means faster rasterization for display output. The 48 ROPs versus 24 ROPs supports this pixel throughput advantage. The presence of 20 RT cores enables hardware ray tracing, which the B200 SXM6 cannot perform. DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it compatible with graphics software stacks, whereas the B200 SXM6 lists N/A for all APIs. The 35 W TDP versus 1000 W means the RTX 4050 Max-Q suits battery-powered devices, and the IGP slot form factor integrates into laptops. The higher base clock of 1140 MHz versus 120 MHz allows quicker response in interactive scenarios. The 16 Gbps effective memory rate, double the B200 SXM6's 8 Gbps, shows the RTX 4050 Max-Q uses faster per-pin signaling, though the B200 SXM6 compensates with a much wider bus.

The launch dates place the RTX 4050 Max-Q earlier (2023-01-02) and the B200 SXM6 later (2024-10-31). The B200 SXM6 carries a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q has no MSRP recorded. Production status is Active for both, meaning neither is discontinued per the database. The B200 SXM6's predecessor and successor (Server Hopper, Server Rubin) indicate a server product line, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q's lineage (GeForce 30 Mobile, GeForce 50 Mobile) marks it as a mobile consumer part.

The core count disparity is stark: 18,944 shading units against 2,560. Texture mapping units: 592 versus 80. Tensor cores: 592 versus 80. The B200 SXM6 has no RT cores, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q has 20. These numbers show the B200 SXM6 dedicates every transistor to parallel compute, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q balances compute with specialized graphics hardware. The die size difference, 1628 mm² versus 159 mm², reflects the B200 SXM6's role as a flagship accelerator and the RTX 4050 Max-Q's role as a low-power mobile chip. Transistor density is similar (127.8M versus 118.9M per mm²), indicating both use contemporary 5 nm fabrication efficiently.

In summary, the database positions the B200 SXM6 as a compute monster with no display capability, no graphics API support, and a power draw of 1000 W. The RTX 4050 Max-Q appears as a mobile graphics processor with full API compatibility, ray tracing, and a 35 W envelope. Each wins where its design intends: the B200 SXM6 for data-center compute, the RTX 4050 Max-Q for portable graphics. There are no overlapping use cases where one could replace the other based on the recorded data.