NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison rests on the computed performance metrics in the database. The FP32 throughput figures show a clear separation: the B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS, while the N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS. That places the B200 SXM6 at roughly 2.9 times the raw FP32 compute of the N1X 40SM. For FP16, both parts report a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 numbers, so the same 2.9x gap persists in half-precision work.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The B200 SXM6 has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, the N1X 40SM has 273.2 GB/s. The B200 SXM6's bandwidth is about 30 times higher. That is a far larger gap than the compute difference, which indicates the B200 SXM6 is built for data movement at a scale the N1X 40SM cannot approach. Pixel throughput, however, flips the narrative. The N1X 40SM achieves 93.84 GPixel/s, the B200 SXM6 achieves 43.92 GPixel/s. The N1X 40SM is ahead by roughly 2.1 times in pixel fill rate. Texture rate favors the B200 SXM6 again: 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s, a lead of about 44 percent.

The B200 SXM6's shading unit count is 18,944, the N1X 40SM has 5,120. That is a 3.7x difference in raw shader hardware. Yet the N1X 40SM's boost clock is 2,346 MHz against the B200 SXM6's 1,830 MHz, which helps close some of the gap in pixel-heavy workloads. The B200 SXM6 also has 592 tensor cores versus 160 on the N1X 40SM, a 3.7x lead in tensor hardware. The N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores; the B200 SXM6 has no listed RT core count.

The database shows both parts at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero for both. That means no empirical benchmark data is present, so all conclusions here derive from the specification-derived metrics. The wins break down as zero for each side in direct head-to-head benchmarks, but the specification analysis gives a clear split: the B200 SXM6 wins on compute, bandwidth, texture rate, and tensor throughput; the N1X 40SM wins on pixel rate, clock speed, and ray tracing availability.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip on the Blackwell architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also 5 nm at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 is part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation; the N1X 40SM belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are active production parts, but they target different roles.

The B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The N1X 40SM has an unknown transistor count, but its die size is 382 mm². That is a 4.3x difference in die area, which explains the massive disparity in shading units and memory bus width. The B200 SXM6 uses an 8192-bit memory bus with HBM3e memory totaling 180 GB. The N1X 40SM uses a 256-bit bus with LPDDR5X memory totaling 128 GB. The B200 SXM6 has 592 TMUs and 24 ROPs; the N1X 40SM has 320 TMUs and 40 ROPs. The ROP count on the N1X 40SM is 1.7 times higher, which aligns with its pixel rate advantage.

The B200 SXM6 lists no RT cores, while the N1X 40SM lists 40. The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs; the N1X 40SM has 1x HDMI. The B200 SXM6 uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface; the N1X 40SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Power delivery differs sharply: the B200 SXM6 has a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU, while the N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP and no power connectors, consistent with an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. The B200 SXM6 is an SXM module; the N1X 40SM is an IGP.

Memory clocks also differ. The B200 SXM6 runs memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective); the N1X 40SM runs at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Despite the higher effective data rate on the N1X 40SM, its 256-bit bus limits total bandwidth to a fraction of the B200 SXM6's. The B200 SXM6's base clock is 120 MHz with a boost of 1830 MHz; the N1X 40SM's base is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. The N1X 40SM boosts 28 percent higher, but the B200 SXM6 compensates with far more execution units.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 is the clear choice for compute-bound workloads. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS dwarfs the N1X 40SM's 24.02 TFLOPS. Any task that spends most of its time in matrix math or dense linear algebra will favor the B200 SXM6. The 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth makes it suitable for very large data sets, large model weights, or high-resolution simulation grids. The 180 GB HBM3e capacity is also far larger than the N1X 40SM's 128 GB LPDDR5X, so the B200 SXM6 can hold bigger working sets without spilling to system memory.

The B200 SXM6's tensor core count of 592 versus 160 on the N1X 40SM points to a large advantage in AI inference and training workloads. Its texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s also makes it faster for shader-heavy rendering that relies on texture sampling. The PCIe 6.0 x16 interface on the B200 SXM6 provides a newer bus standard than the N1X 40SM's PCIe 5.0 x16, which matters for host-device data transfer in multi-GPU servers.

The N1X 40SM wins on pixel fill rate. Its 93.84 GPixel/s is more than double the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s, so it is better suited for workloads that output many pixels, such as rasterization or post-processing passes. Its 40 ROPs versus 24 on the B200 SXM6 supports this. The higher boost clock of 2,346 MHz also helps latency-sensitive tasks that run on a small number of threads. The N1X 40SM has 40 RT cores, so ray-traced workloads have dedicated acceleration hardware that the B200 SXM6 does not list. The N1X 40SM also includes a display output (1x HDMI), so it can drive a monitor directly, while the B200 SXM6 has no outputs.

The N1X 40SM's IGP form factor means it consumes far less power and needs no external power connectors, though the exact TDP is unknown. The B200 SXM6 requires a 1000 W power budget and a 1400 W suggested PSU, which restricts it to server platforms with substantial power delivery. For a desktop or workstation where a display output and modest power envelope matter, the N1X 40SM is the practical option. For a dedicated compute node with no display needs, the B200 SXM6 is the performance leader.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, which is about 2.9 times the N1X 40SM's 24.02 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each part have?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth via HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The N1X 40SM has 273.2 GB/s via LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which part has more memory capacity?

A: The B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e. The N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X.

Q: Does either part support ray tracing?

A: The N1X 40SM lists 40 RT cores. The B200 SXM6 has no RT core count listed in the database.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The N1X 40SM achieves 93.84 GPixel/s, which is about 2.1 times the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s.

Q: Which part has a display output?

A: The N1X 40SM has 1x HDMI. The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs.

The Verdict

The data splits cleanly by workload type. For compute-heavy server tasks, the B200 SXM6 is the only reasonable pick. Its FP32 and FP16 performance is roughly 2.9 times higher, its tensor cores number 592 versus 160, and its memory bandwidth is about 30 times higher. The 180 GB HBM3e frame buffer also gives it a capacity advantage over the N1X 40SM's 128 GB. Anyone running large-scale AI training, scientific simulation, or data-intensive analytics should choose the B200 SXM6, provided the platform can handle a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU.

For pixel-bound or display-driven workloads, the N1X 40SM is the better match. It has double the pixel fill rate, a higher boost clock, dedicated RT cores, and a display output. Its IGP form factor requires no power connectors and has an unknown, likely much lower, power draw. It also uses the more recent Blackwell 2.0 architecture, though the B200 SXM6's Blackwell architecture is not outdated. The N1X 40SM's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface is one generation behind the B200 SXM6's PCIe 6.0 x16, but that matters little for pixel output tasks.

The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD. The N1X 40SM has no listed launch MSRP. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but that percentile reflects missing benchmark data rather than equal performance. The specification-derived metrics show a substantial performance gap in favor of the B200 SXM6 for raw compute and memory throughput, while the N1X 40SM takes the pixel rate and ray tracing categories. There is no single winner; the choice depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound or pixel-bound.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

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

| Chip | GB100 | GB20B |

| Architecture | Blackwell | Blackwell 2.0 |

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

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 208,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1628 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 127.8M / mm² | null |

| 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 | 18944 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 592 | 320 |

| ROPs | 24 | 40 |

| RT Cores | null | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 43.92 GPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,083.4 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 69.34 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | null | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | null |

| 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 | null |