NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head results for the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 and NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both parts show zero recorded benchmark scores, and the wins counter for each is zero. This absence of measured performance data means any comparison must rely on the architectural specifications and theoretical peak rates recorded in the database.

The FP32 compute figures reveal a substantial gap. The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the N1X 48SM produces 28.83 TFLOPS. That places the B200 at roughly 2.4 times the raw FP32 output of the N1X. The same ratio applies to FP16, as both parts list FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32: 69.34 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS. For workloads that scale with shader throughput, the B200 holds a clear mathematical advantage, though no benchmark confirms how that translates into real-world application performance.

Texture and pixel rates tell a more nuanced story. The B200 reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s, while the N1X posts 900.9 GTexel/s, a lead of about 20% for the B200. However, the pixel rate flips: the N1X achieves 112.6 GPixel/s, which is more than double the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s. This inversion comes from the ROP configuration, where the N1X has 48 ROPs versus the B200's 24. The B200 compensates with 592 texture mapping units against the N1X's 384, but the ROP disparity dominates pixel output.

Memory bandwidth shows the most extreme divergence. The B200's HBM3e stack provides 8.19 TB/s across an 8192-bit bus, while the N1X's LPDDR5X offers 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit interface. That works out to a 30-fold difference in bandwidth. The B200 also carries 180 GB of memory versus 128 GB on the N1X, a 52 GB capacity advantage. For memory-bound workloads such as large model inference or high-resolution rendering, the B200's bandwidth profile is categorically different from the N1X's.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins in compute density and memory capacity. Its 18944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, and 592 TMUs provide a shader-heavy configuration suited to parallel floating-point workloads. The 180 GB HBM3e pool with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth supports datasets that would not fit in the N1X's 128 GB LPDDR5X. The 208,000 million transistor count on a 1628 mm² die indicates a design aimed at maximum throughput per module, not efficiency or integration.

The N1X 48SM wins in pixel throughput and power profile. Its 112.6 GPixel/s fill rate, driven by 48 ROPs, gives it an advantage in rasterization-heavy tasks that require rapid fragment processing. The 741 MHz base clock and 2346 MHz boost clock are substantially higher than the B200's 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost, reflecting a design tuned for higher per-clock efficiency rather than absolute core count. The N1X's IGP form factor with no power connectors and unknown TDP suggests a low-power integrated solution, whereas the B200 lists a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU.

Clock speeds also favor the N1X in latency-sensitive scenarios. The 2346 MHz boost clock allows faster single-threaded execution per core, which can benefit workloads that do not scale perfectly across thousands of shaders. The B200's 1830 MHz boost is lower, but its core count more than compensates in massively parallel tasks. The N1X's 48 RT cores versus the B200's null RT core listing indicates the N1X carries dedicated ray tracing hardware, while the B200 does not report any.

Architecture Differences

The B200 uses the GB100 chip on the Blackwell architecture, while the N1X uses the GB20B chip on Blackwell 2.0. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the B200 packs 208,000 million transistors into a 1628 mm² die, giving a density of 127.8M per mm². The N1X's transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size of 382 mm² is roughly one-quarter the area of the B200's die.

The B200 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, positioned between Server Hopper and Server Rubin as predecessor and successor respectively. The N1X sits in the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation with no predecessor or successor listed. The B200 uses an SXM Module slot width, while the N1X is an IGP, meaning it integrates directly into a host processor package rather than occupying a discrete slot.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The B200 uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 2000 MHz memory clock at 8 Gbps effective. The N1X uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 1067 MHz memory clock at 8.5 Gbps effective. The B200's bus width is 32 times wider, which explains the bandwidth gap despite the N1X's slightly higher effective memory clock in Gbps terms.

The tensor core counts also differ: 592 on the B200 versus 192 on the N1X. The B200 lists no RT cores, while the N1X has 48. The B200 has no display outputs, while the N1X provides 1x HDMI. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 6.0 x16 on the B200 versus PCIe 5.0 x16 on the N1X. The B200's API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, matching the N1X's N/A entries.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the N1X 48SM's 28.83 TFLOPS. Both parts list FP16 at the same 1:1 ratio.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The B200 has 180 GB of HBM3e, while the N1X has 128 GB of LPDDR5X. The B200's bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s on the N1X.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The N1X achieves 112.6 GPixel/s, over twice the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s. This comes from the N1X's 48 ROPs versus 24 on the B200.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The N1X lists 48 RT cores, while the B200 lists null for RT cores. The B200's tensor core count (592) exceeds the N1X's (192), but the N1X carries dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the clock speeds?

A: The B200 runs at a 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The N1X runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The N1X's boost clock is 516 MHz higher.

Q: How do the physical packages differ?

A: The B200 is an SXM Module with a 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The N1X is an IGP with no power connectors and unknown TDP. The B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the N1X uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct design targets. The B200 SXM6 is a server accelerator built for maximum compute and memory throughput. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and 180 GB capacity make it the choice for workloads that demand large model fits and high arithmetic intensity. The 1000 W TDP and SXM form factor confirm this is a data-center part, not a general-purpose GPU.

The N1X 48SM is an integrated processor solution. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 is still substantial, but the 112.6 GPixel/s fill rate and 48 RT cores suggest a focus on graphics and rasterization rather than pure compute. The 2346 MHz boost clock and 741 MHz base clock indicate a design that prioritizes per-core speed over core count. The 128 GB LPDDR5X memory is large for an IGP but small compared to the B200's HBM3e stack.

For users running AI training or inference with massive parameter sets, the B200's 180 GB memory and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth provide the necessary headroom. The N1X's 273.2 GB/s bandwidth would bottleneck such workloads. For users needing high pixel throughput or ray tracing in a low-power integrated package, the N1X's 48 ROPs and 48 RT cores deliver capabilities the B200 does not list.

Neither part shows any recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile ranking for both sits at 50 against all GPUs, and the average benchmark score is zero for each. The absence of measured data means these conclusions rest entirely on the recorded specifications, not validated performance. The B200's 208,000 million transistors and 1628 mm² die size indicate a far more complex silicon, while the N1X's 382 mm² die and unknown transistor count suggest a leaner implementation.

Specification Differences

| Field | B200 SXM6 | N1X 48SM |

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

| Chip | GB100 | GB20B |

| Architecture | Blackwell | Blackwell 2.0 |

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

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 208,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1628 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 120 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1830 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | 180 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 18944 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 592 | 384 |

| ROPs | 24 | 48 |

| RT Cores | null | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 43.92 GPixel/s | 112.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,083.4 GTexel/s | 900.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 69.34 TFLOPS | 28.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.83 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 |

The release dates place the B200 in 2024 and the N1X in 2026, with only the B200 carrying a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD. The B200's predecessor and successor are listed as Server Hopper and Server Rubin, while the N1X has neither. Both parts remain in active production status.