NVIDIA B200 SXM6 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

NVIDIA B200 SXM6 and NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation occupy distinct positions in the database. The B200 SXM6 is a server module built on the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture, while the RTX 4000 SFF is a workstation card from the GeForce 40-series using AD104 with Ada Lovelace architecture. The database records no head-to-head benchmark tests between them, so the analysis below relies on their individual specifications and the RTX 4000 SFF's recorded benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,364, giving it an average benchmark score of 117,088 and a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: How does the RTX 4000 SFF compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The data shows the RTX 4000 SFF is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GB10 (average score 117,393), 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (average score 118,976), 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (average score 114,395), and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (average score 113,944).

Q: What is the memory configuration on each card?

A: The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 3.6 times higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 19.17 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The B200 SXM6 has a 1000 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1400 W. The RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: Do either of these cards have display outputs?

A: The B200 SXM6 has no display outputs, while the RTX 4000 SFF includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The B200 SXM6 and RTX 4000 SFF represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip built on Blackwell architecture, which is classified in the Server Blackwell generation. The RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, from the Workstation Ada generation. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the chip designs diverge significantly.

The B200 SXM6 packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4000 SFF contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The B200's die is over five times larger and holds nearly six times more transistors.

Compute resources differ substantially. The B200 SXM6 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 592 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 192 tensor cores, and additionally includes 48 ray tracing cores. The B200's datasheet does not list RT cores, while the RTX 4000 SFF specifically includes them. ROP counts also differ, with the B200 having 24 ROPs versus 64 on the RTX 4000 SFF.

Clock behavior shows contrasting strategies. The B200 SXM6 has a very low base clock of 120 MHz but boosts to 1830 MHz, indicating a design that relies on boosting under load. The RTX 4000 SFF runs at a higher base clock of 720 MHz with a more modest boost of 1560 MHz. The B200's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, while the RTX 4000 SFF's memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

API support separates the cards clearly. The B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming its server-only role. The RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for graphics workloads. The B200 also uses PCIe 6.0 x16 while the RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the B200 SXM6 and the RTX 4000 SFF. However, the available specification data allows for meaningful comparisons of theoretical performance limits.

In pixel throughput, the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 99.84 GPixel/s, which is 2.3 times higher than the B200 SXM6's 43.92 GPixel/s. This seems counterintuitive given the B200's much larger compute footprint, but the B200's low ROP count of 24 versus 64 on the RTX 4000 SFF explains the difference. The B200 prioritizes compute over rasterization.

Texture rate flips the comparison. The B200 SXM6 achieves 1,083.4 GTexel/s, which is 3.6 times higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 299.5 GTexel/s. This aligns with the B200's 592 TMUs versus 192 on the RTX 4000 SFF.

FP32 performance shows the B200's compute dominance. The B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS on the RTX 4000 SFF, a 3.6x advantage. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both cards at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the B200 also leads by 3.6x in FP16.

Memory bandwidth presents the most dramatic gap. The B200 SXM6 offers 8.19 TB/s from 180 GB of HBM3e, while the RTX 4000 SFF offers 280.0 GB/s from 20 GB of GDDR6. The B200's bandwidth is 29.3 times higher, and its capacity is 9 times larger. The B200's 8192-bit bus versus 160-bit bus on the RTX 4000 SFF drives this separation.

The RTX 4000 SFF's recorded benchmark scores place it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 sits close to the NVIDIA GB10's 117,393 (0.3% difference) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700's 118,976 (1.6% difference). The B200 SXM6 has no recorded benchmark scores, landing at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, which reflects the absence of test data rather than performance capability.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the B200 SXM6 and RTX 4000 SFF serve fundamentally different purposes. The B200 SXM6 is a server module with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and massive memory resources. The RTX 4000 SFF is a workstation card with 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and compact dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height.

The B200 SXM6 wins decisively in compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32, 180 GB HBM3e, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth position it for large-scale server workloads. The RTX 4000 SFF counters with higher pixel rate at 99.84 GPixel/s, higher base clock at 720 MHz, and 48 ray tracing cores that the B200 lacks.

The RTX 4000 SFF's 95th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 117,088 provide measurable performance against its nearest rivals. The B200 SXM6 has no benchmark entries, so the database cannot assign it a verified performance score. The 50th percentile for the B200 reflects missing data, not measured weakness.

Power consumption tells the operational story. The B200 SXM6 demands 1000 W TDP and a 1400 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4000 SFF sips 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested power supply. The B200's launch MSRP is 34,999 USD, while the RTX 4000 SFF has no recorded launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture, while the RTX 4000 SFF uses AD104 with Ada Lovelace. The B200 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation; the RTX 4000 SFF belongs to the Workstation Ada generation.

Transistor counts and die sizes diverge: 208,000 million transistors on 1628 mm² for the B200 versus 35,800 million on 294 mm² for the RTX 4000 SFF. Transistor density is similar at 127.8M/mm² versus 121.8M/mm². Base clocks are 120 MHz on the B200 and 720 MHz on the RTX 4000 SFF, while boost clocks are 1830 MHz and 1560 MHz respectively.

Memory systems are entirely different. The B200 uses 180 GB HBM3e with 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB GDDR6 with 160-bit bus and 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks differ at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute units show the B200's scale advantage: 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores versus 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 192 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 48 RT cores and 64 ROPs, while the B200 has 24 ROPs and no listed RT cores.

Form factors and power profiles differ completely. The B200 is an SXM Module using PCIe 6.0 x16 with no power connectors listed. The RTX 4000 SFF is dual-slot, uses PCIe 4.0 x16, requires no power connectors, and measures 168 mm by 69 mm. The B200 has no display outputs; the RTX 4000 SFF has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release dates are about 19 months apart: the B200 released on 2024-10-31, the RTX 4000 SFF on 2023-03-20. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper with successor Server Rubin. The RTX 4000 SFF's predecessor is Workstation Ampere with successor Blackwell PRO W.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 SXM6 wins in workloads that demand massive memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 180 GB HBM3e with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth surpasses the RTX 4000 SFF's 20 GB GDDR6 with 280.0 GB/s by 9x in capacity and 29.3x in bandwidth. Large-scale server applications that process datasets exceeding 20 GB will favor the B200.

Compute-heavy tasks favor the B200. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance is 3.6x higher than the RTX 4000 SFF's 19.17 TFLOPS. Texture-heavy workloads also favor the B200, which delivers 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s on the RTX 4000 SFF, a 3.6x advantage.

The RTX 4000 SFF wins in graphics and visualization contexts. Its 64 ROPs and 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate exceed the B200's 24 ROPs and 43.92 GPixel/s by 2.3x. The presence of 48 ray tracing cores, plus DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, enables graphics workloads the B200 cannot handle at all.

Workstation ergonomics favor the RTX 4000 SFF. Its 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested power supply allow deployment in standard workstations, while the B200's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested power supply require server-class infrastructure. The RTX 4000 SFF's compact dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height fit in standard workstation chassis.

Measured performance data exists only for the RTX 4000 SFF. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it at the 95th percentile, making it one of the higher-performing GPUs in the database. The B200 has no benchmark scores, so the database cannot confirm its real-world standing against other server GPUs. The B200's 50th percentile is a placeholder for missing data, not an indication of mid-pack performance.

The RTX 4000 SFF's nearest rival comparisons show it performing competitively within its class. It trails the NVIDIA GB10 by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%, while leading the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%. These narrow margins indicate the RTX 4000 SFF sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The B200 SXM6's server positioning is clear from its specification profile. No display outputs, no graphics APIs, and a 1000 W TDP define it as a compute accelerator. The RTX 4000 SFF's workstation role is equally clear from its display outputs, graphics API support, and low power draw. The database supports the conclusion that these cards target different segments with minimal overlap.