NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both cards record zero benchmark scores, zero wins in comparative testing, and identical 50th percentile placements among all GPUs tracked. Their average benchmark scores are both zero, meaning the recorded data offers no performance deltas, no frame-rate comparisons, and no compute workloads where one demonstrably outpaces the other.

This absence of measured data is itself informative. The B200 SXM6 and N1 20SM occupy completely different segments of NVIDIA's lineup, and the lack of overlapping benchmarks reflects that reality. The B200 is a server accelerator with a 1000 W thermal design and a 1400 W suggested power supply, built for datacenter racks. The N1 is an integrated graphics processor, draws no external power connectors, and outputs to a single HDMI display. No common test suite has been run on both, which is typical when one product has no display outputs and the other is designed for visual output.

What the data does show is the theoretical ceiling of each part based on their recorded specifications. The B200's FP32 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS dwarfs the N1's 12.01 TFLOPS, a 5.77x difference. The B200's texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s compares to 375.4 GTexel/s on the N1, a 2.89x gap. The pixel rates tell a different story: the N1 actually delivers 56.30 GPixel/s versus the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s, a 28% advantage for the smaller chip. That inversion shows how the two products are optimized differently, with the N1's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1830 MHz helping it in pixel throughput despite far fewer shading units.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive split. The B200's 8.19 TB/s over an 8192-bit HBM3e interface is roughly 30 times the N1's 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The B200 also holds 180 GB of memory versus 128 GB. These are not competing classes of hardware. The B200 is built for massive parallel workloads that saturate memory bandwidth, while the N1's 8.5 Gbps effective memory speed and 1067 MHz base memory clock suit a more modest integrated role.

In the absence of benchmark scores, the specification deltas serve as the only measurable comparison. The B200 leads in raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and transistor count. The N1 leads in boost clock, pixel fill rate, and base clock. Neither product has recorded wins in the database, so the head-to-head picture is entirely derived from architectural and specification differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 12.01 TFLOPS for the N1 20SM. That is a 5.77x advantage for the B200.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The B200's bandwidth is approximately 30 times higher.

Q: Does the N1 20SM have any performance advantage?

A: The recorded data shows the N1 has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 1830 MHz, and a higher pixel rate at 56.30 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s. Its base clock of 741 MHz is also higher than the B200's 120 MHz.

Q: What display outputs does each card have?

A: The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs. The N1 20SM has 1x HDMI output.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The N1 has unknown TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the bus interface for each?

A: The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The N1 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 is built on the GB100 chip using the Blackwell architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge sharply in scale and design intent.

The B200 packs 208,000 million transistors into a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The N1's transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 382 mm², about 23.5% of the B200's area. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The N1 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. The B200's shading unit count is 7.4 times higher, and its tensor core count is 7.4 times higher as well. The N1 includes dedicated RT cores; the B200's RT core count is not recorded in the database.

The N1's Blackwell 2.0 architecture introduces a generational step not present in the B200. The B200 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation, while the N1 belongs to the Blackwell IGP generation, a distinction that explains the N1's integrated positioning. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin, placing it in a clear datacenter lineage. The N1 has no recorded predecessor or successor, marking it as a standalone integrated part.

Memory technology differs fundamentally. The B200 uses HBM3e with a 2000 MHz base memory clock and 8 Gbps effective speed. The N1 uses LPDDR5X with a 1067 MHz base memory clock and 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The B200's 8192-bit bus width is 32 times wider than the N1's 256-bit bus. The B200's 8.19 TB/s bandwidth reflects a memory subsystem designed for massive parallel access, while the N1's 273.2 GB/s reflects a more conventional integrated memory controller.

The B200 has no display outputs and supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs. The N1 also lists N/A for those APIs but includes a single HDMI output. The B200 is an SXM Module with no power connectors listed, while the N1 is an IGP with no power connectors. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences across nearly every field. The B200's chip is GB100; the N1's is GB20B. The B200 uses Blackwell architecture; the N1 uses Blackwell 2.0. The B200's generation is Server Blackwell (Bxx); the N1's is Blackwell IGP (N1x). The B200 has a base clock of 120 MHz and a boost clock of 1830 MHz; the N1 has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Memory differs in size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. The B200 has 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The B200's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective; the N1's is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ substantially. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The N1 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The B200's FP32 is 69.34 TFLOPS with FP16 at 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1). The N1's FP32 is 12.01 TFLOPS with FP16 at 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1). Pixel rates are 43.92 GPixel/s for the B200 and 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1. Texture rates are 1,083.4 GTexel/s for the B200 and 375.4 GTexel/s for the N1.

Power and physical specifications differ. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The N1 has an unknown TDP and no suggested PSU. The B200 uses an SXM Module slot width; the N1 uses an IGP slot width. The B200's bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16; the N1's is PCIe 5.0 x16. The B200 has no display outputs; the N1 has 1x HDMI. The B200 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the N1 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The B200's release date is recorded as 2024-10-31, while the N1's is 2026-05-31. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper and successor is Server Rubin. The N1 has no predecessor or successor listed. The B200's transistor density is 127.8M per mm²; the N1's is not recorded. The B200's die size is 1628 mm²; the N1's is 382 mm².

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 of 69.34 TFLOPS is 5.77 times the N1's 12.01 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s is 2.89 times the N1's 375.4 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is roughly 30 times the N1's 273.2 GB/s. Its memory capacity of 180 GB exceeds the N1's 128 GB by 40%. Its tensor core count of 592 versus 80 gives it a 7.4x advantage in AI-accelerated workloads. Its shading unit count of 18,944 versus 2,560 provides a 7.4x advantage in parallel compute.

The N1 20SM wins in pixel throughput. Its 56.30 GPixel/s exceeds the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s by 28%. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is 28% higher than the B200's 1830 MHz. Its base clock of 741 MHz is substantially higher than the B200's 120 MHz. The N1 also has dedicated RT cores, with 20 ray tracing cores recorded, while the B200's RT core count is not listed. The N1 includes a display output, making it the only one of the two capable of driving a monitor. Its lower memory bandwidth and smaller compute footprint suggest a design for efficiency and integrated use rather than peak throughput.

The B200's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU indicate a part intended for dedicated server power delivery. The N1's lack of power connectors and unknown TDP indicate a part that draws power from its host system. The B200's PCIe 6.0 x16 interface is a generation ahead of the N1's PCIe 5.0 x16. The B200's HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus is built for bandwidth-bound datacenter tasks. The N1's LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus suits integrated, latency-tolerant workloads.

The B200's 5 nm process with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die represents a maximum-scale design. The N1's 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die represents a much smaller, integrated design. The B200's transistor density of 127.8M per mm² is recorded; the N1's is not, but its smaller die with fewer shading units implies a different density profile.

The Verdict

The data places these two products in entirely separate categories. The B200 SXM6 is a server accelerator with a 1000 W TDP, no display outputs, and a 34,999 USD launch MSRP. The N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor with a single HDMI output, no power connectors, and no recorded launch price. A builder selecting between them would be choosing between a rack-mounted compute node and an integrated GPU for a system-on-chip design.

For workloads that demand massive parallel compute, the B200 is the clear choice based on recorded specifications. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, 180 GB HBM3e capacity, and 592 tensor cores position it for datacenter-scale AI training, scientific simulation, and high-bandwidth data processing. Its PCIe 6.0 x16 interface and 1000 W TDP confirm its server-class intent.

For workloads that require display output, pixel fill, or integrated operation, the N1 is the only option between the two. Its 1x HDMI output, 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 2346 MHz boost clock give it a functional edge in graphics output tasks. Its 20 RT cores provide ray tracing capability not recorded for the B200. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X memory and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth are modest but sufficient for integrated use.

The 28% pixel rate advantage for the N1 and the 5.77x FP32 advantage for the B200 tell the same story from opposite angles. The B200 is optimized for compute density and memory throughput. The N1 is optimized for clock speed, pixel output, and integration. Neither product has benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict rests entirely on specification analysis.

The B200's release date of 2024-10-31 and the N1's release date of 2026-05-31 place them in different market windows. The B200 has clear lineage with a predecessor and successor; the N1 has neither. The B200's 208,000 million transistors and 1628 mm² die represent the largest recorded silicon in this comparison. The N1's 382 mm² die is less than a quarter of that area.

The recorded data supports one unambiguous conclusion: the B200 SXM6 is the compute powerhouse, and the N1 20SM is the integrated graphics solution. Selecting between them requires knowing which role the hardware must fill. For raw compute and memory bandwidth, the B200 dominates every recorded metric. For display output and pixel fill, the N1 is the only viable choice. The database shows no overlap in their performance profiles, and no benchmark results exist to bridge that gap.