NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 or the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both entries report an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This absence of measured data means every comparison must rely on the recorded technical specifications and the derived performance limits those specifications imply.

The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. The difference is a factor of approximately 7.2, meaning the B200 SXM6 processes over seven times as many floating-point operations per second in single-precision workloads. The FP16 figures are identical to the FP32 figures for both parts, as each runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, so the same 7.2x advantage carries over to half-precision compute tasks.

Memory bandwidth shows a similar magnitude of separation. The B200 SXM6 provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth from its 8192-bit HBM3e interface, while the N1 16SM provides 273.2 GB/s from a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface. Converting the B200 figure to gigabytes per second yields 8,190 GB/s, which is exactly 30 times the N1 16SM's bandwidth. This is the largest proportional gap between the two parts in any measured specification.

Texture throughput follows the compute and memory hierarchy. The B200 SXM6 achieves 1,083.4 GTexel/s, while the N1 16SM achieves 300.3 GTexel/s. The B200 SXM6 delivers roughly 3.6 times the texturing rate. Pixel rate inverts this ordering, as the N1 16SM records 56.30 GPixel/s against the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s, a 28% advantage for the smaller part. This results from the N1 16SM's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1830 MHz, combined with a 24-ROP count that is identical on both chips.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The B200 SXM6 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz, a 15.25x ratio between the two states. The N1 16SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, a 3.17x ratio. The N1 16SM's boost clock is 28% higher than the B200 SXM6's boost clock, but its base clock is over six times higher in absolute terms.

The B200 SXM6 carries 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores. The N1 16SM carries 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 tensor cores. The B200 SXM6 thus has 9.25 times the shading units, 4.625 times the TMUs, and 9.25 times the tensor cores. The N1 16SM additionally has 16 RT cores, while the B200 SXM6 reports no RT core count.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these parts into distinct roles with minimal overlap. The B200 SXM6 is the clear choice for compute-bound and memory-bound workloads. Its 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and 180 GB of HBM3e capacity place it in a performance class that the N1 16SM cannot approach. Any workload that saturates either compute units or memory bandwidth will favor the B200 SXM6 by a wide margin.

The N1 16SM wins where power envelope, physical integration, and display output matter. It is an IGP with no power connectors and a 1x HDMI output, meaning it can drive a display directly. The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs and requires an SXM module slot plus a 1400 W suggested PSU. The N1 16SM also posts a higher pixel rate at 56.30 GPixel/s, so pure rasterization throughput at the pixel level favors it.

The B200 SXM6 launches at a listed MSRP of 34,999 USD, while the N1 16SM has no launch MSRP recorded. This price difference, combined with the B200 SXM6's 1000 W TDP, positions it as a dedicated accelerator for servers with ample power and cooling. The N1 16SM, with unknown TDP and no power connectors, targets integrated or low-power designs where the B200 SXM6 cannot operate.

Neither part supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan according to the database, so both are unsuitable for conventional gaming or consumer graphics APIs. The N1 16SM's HDMI output does not translate into API support; it simply provides a physical display interface.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on the Blackwell architecture, while the N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node. The generations differ: the B200 SXM6 belongs to Server Blackwell (Bxx), while the N1 16SM belongs to Blackwell IGP (N1x).

The B200 SXM6 packs 208,000 million transistors onto a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The N1 16SM has an unknown transistor count but occupies a 382 mm² die, which is roughly one-quarter the area of the B200 SXM6. The transistor density for the N1 16SM is not recorded.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, while the N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus. The memory clock differs as well: the B200 SXM6 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The effective data rate per pin is higher on the N1 16SM, but the B200 SXM6's 32x wider bus produces its massive bandwidth advantage.

The B200 SXM6 has a boost clock of 1830 MHz and a base clock of 120 MHz. The N1 16SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz and a base clock of 741 MHz. The N1 16SM's higher clocks suggest a design tuned for lower thermal density, consistent with its IGP form factor.

The B200 SXM6 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the N1 16SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The B200 SXM6's slot width is SXM Module, the N1 16SM's is IGP. The B200 SXM6 lists a suggested PSU of 1400 W, the N1 16SM lists none. The B200 SXM6 has no power connectors recorded, the N1 16SM explicitly has none.

Release timing places the B200 SXM6 at 2024-10-31 and the N1 16SM at 2026-05-31, a gap of roughly 19 months. The B200 SXM6 has a predecessor in Server Hopper and a successor in Server Rubin, while the N1 16SM records neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. The B200 SXM6 is approximately 7.2 times faster in single-precision workloads.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 offers 30 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports display output?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1 16SM has a display output, listed as 1x HDMI. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The B200 SXM6 boosts to 1830 MHz, while the N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The N1 16SM has a 28% higher boost clock.

Q: Do either GPU support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: Both GPUs report N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database. Neither part supports these graphics APIs.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The B200 SXM6 contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die. The N1 16SM has an unknown transistor count on a 382 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 dominates in every category related to raw compute and memory capacity. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS exceeds the N1 16SM by a factor of 7.2. Its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is 30 times the N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s. Its 180 GB of memory exceeds the N1 16SM's 128 GB by 40%. Its 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate is 3.6 times the N1 16SM's 300.3 GTexel/s. Its 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores all dwarf the N1 16SM's counts of 2,048, 128, and 64, respectively.

The N1 16SM wins in clock speed and pixel throughput. Its 2346 MHz boost clock exceeds the B200 SXM6's 1830 MHz. Its 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s by 28%. Its 741 MHz base clock is dramatically higher than the B200 SXM6's 120 MHz, indicating a more consistent performance floor without relying on aggressive boosting. It also carries 16 RT cores, a feature the B200 SXM6 does not list.

The N1 16SM wins on integration and connectivity. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, one generation newer in availability but older in specification than the B200 SXM6's PCIe 6.0 x16. It requires no power connectors, while the B200 SXM6 needs an SXM module slot and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The N1 16SM's IGP form factor means it can be embedded directly into a host system, whereas the B200 SXM6 is a standalone module.

The B200 SXM6 wins on production status timing. It launched on 2024-10-31 and has defined predecessor and successor products, indicating a mature product line. The N1 16SM launches on 2026-05-31 with no predecessor or successor recorded.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | NVIDIA N1 16SM |

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

| Chip | GB100 | GB20B |

| Architecture | Blackwell | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Server Blackwell (Bxx) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Die Size | 1628 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 120 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1830 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 180 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 592 | 128 |

| ROPs | 24 | 24 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 43.92 GPixel/s | 56.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,083.4 GTexel/s | 300.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 69.34 TFLOPS | 9.609 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) | 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | Unknown |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | None listed |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI |

| Release Date | 2024-10-31 | 2026-05-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 34,999 USD | None listed |