NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

NVIDIA’s B300 SXM6 AC and B200 are both flagship server accelerators built on the Blackwell architecture, but they target different performance and capacity tiers. The B300 SXM6 AC leads the B200 in the single available benchmark, while the B200 counters with a distinct FP16 throughput advantage and a lower power envelope. The data shows two very capable parts, with the B300 SXM6 AC positioned as the higher-performing sibling in raw compute and memory capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, which is 7% higher than the B200’s 345,482. The B300 SXM6 AC wins the only head-to-head benchmark comparison recorded.

Q: How does the B300 SXM6 AC compare to its closest rival besides the B200?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC is 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994) in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC has 288 GB of HBM3e memory, while the B200 has 90 GB of the same memory type. This represents a 3.2x capacity advantage for the B300 SXM6 AC.

Q: Does the B200 have any performance advantage over the B300 SXM6 AC?

A: Yes, in FP16 compute. The B200 delivers 1,191.2 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio, compared to the B300 SXM6 AC’s 76.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. However, the B300 SXM6 AC has a higher FP32 rate at 76.99 TFLOPS versus 74.45 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements for each module?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC has a TDP of 1100 W with a suggested PSU of 1500 W. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip with 208,000 million transistors, exactly double the B200’s 104,000 million transistors on the GB100 chip.

Architecture Differences

The B300 SXM6 AC is built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture, while the B200 uses the standard Blackwell architecture. Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon itself diverges significantly. The B300 SXM6 AC’s GB110 die measures 1628 mm² and packs 208,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The B200’s GB100 die size and density are not recorded, but its transistor count is 104,000 million — half of the B300 SXM6 AC.

The memory subsystems are markedly different. The B300 SXM6 AC offers 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The B200 provides 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 4.10 TB/s. This gives the B300 SXM6 AC exactly double the bus width and bandwidth, plus over three times the capacity.

Compute resources are identical in count: both GPUs feature 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. Clock speeds differ, with the B300 SXM6 AC running a 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost, while the B200 runs a much lower 700 MHz base but a similar 1965 MHz boost. The FP16 execution is a key architectural split: the B300 SXM6 AC processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (76.99 TFLOPS each), whereas the B200 runs FP16 at a 16:1 ratio, reaching 1,191.2 TFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs. The B300 SXM6 AC uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Both are SXM modules with no display outputs. The B300 SXM6 AC was released on September 10, 2025, and both share the same predecessor (Server Hopper) and successor (Server Rubin) lineage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the B300 SXM6 AC takes the win decisively. It scores 369,831 against the B200’s 345,482, a delta of 7% in favor of the B300 SXM6 AC. This places the B300 SXM6 AC ahead in the single measurable compute test, and the B200 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Looking at the broader rival landscape, the B300 SXM6 AC’s margin over the B200 (7%) is smaller than its lead over the H200 NVL (10.4%) and the MI300X (16.3%). The B200, for its part, is 3.2% ahead of the H200 NVL and 8.6% ahead of the MI300X, but trails the B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6% when the comparison is reversed. The L40S is the weakest of the group, sitting 25% behind the B300 SXM6 AC and 16.8% behind the B200.

The FP32 numbers align with the benchmark result. The B300 SXM6 AC’s 76.99 TFLOPS is 3.4% higher than the B200’s 74.45 TFLOPS, a gap that mirrors the 7% OpenCL lead. Pixel and texture rates follow suit, with the B300 SXM6 AC posting 48.77 GPixel/s and 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus the B200’s 47.16 GPixel/s and 1,163.3 GTexel/s. None of these differences are massive, but they consistently favor the B300 SXM6 AC in raw rasterization and FP32 workloads.

The FP16 story is the outlier. Here the B200 dominates with 1,191.2 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS, a 15.5x advantage. This is not a contradiction — it reflects the B200’s specialized 16:1 FP16 path versus the B300 SXM6 AC’s 1:1 implementation, which prioritizes FP32 parity over raw FP16 throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The chip is GB110 for the B300 SXM6 AC and GB100 for the B200. Architecture names differ: Blackwell Ultra versus Blackwell. Transistor count is 208,000 million versus 104,000 million. The B300 SXM6 AC has a die size of 1628 mm², while the B200’s is not recorded. Transistor density is 127.8M / mm² for the B300 SXM6 AC; the B200 has no listed value.

Base clocks are 1665 MHz for the B300 SXM6 AC and 700 MHz for the B200, though boost clocks are closer at 2032 MHz versus 1965 MHz. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 90 GB, bus width is 8192 bit versus 4096 bit, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 4.10 TB/s. FP16 performance diverges sharply: 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) for the B300 SXM6 AC versus 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) for the B200. FP32 is 76.99 TFLOPS versus 74.45 TFLOPS.

Power figures differ, with the B300 SXM6 AC rated at 1100 W TDP and the B200 at 1000 W. Suggested PSU is 1500 W for the B300 SXM6 AC and 1400 W for the B200. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 on the B300 SXM6 AC versus PCIe 5.0 x16 on the B200. The B300 SXM6 AC has a release date of September 10, 2025; the B200 has none recorded. Both have identical shading units, TMUs, ROPs, tensor cores, memory type, slot width, and display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 SXM6 AC wins in absolute performance and capacity. Its 7% OpenCL lead over the B200, combined with higher FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate, makes it the stronger choice for general compute, FP32-heavy simulation, and rasterization-adjacent workloads. The 288 GB memory capacity and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are transformative for large-model inference or training datasets that exceed the B200’s 90 GB footprint. The 8192-bit bus is double the B200’s, so memory-bound tasks will see outsized gains. It also carries a 10.4% lead over the H200 NVL and 16.3% over the MI300X, reinforcing its position at the top of the stack.

The B200 wins in FP16 throughput by a wide margin. Its 1,191.2 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio is 15.5x higher than the B300 SXM6 AC’s 76.99 TFLOPS, making it the obvious pick for workloads that rely on reduced-precision matrix math, such as certain deep-learning inference paths or mixed-precision training that can tolerate the 16:1 ratio. The B200 also draws 100 W less power (1000 W versus 1100 W) and requires a 1400 W PSU instead of 1500 W, which factors into system-level power budgets. Its lower base clock of 700 MHz suggests a different power profile, though the boost clock of 1965 MHz keeps it competitive in burst workloads.

The use-case split is clear. If the workload demands maximum FP32 and memory capacity, the B300 SXM6 AC is the data-driven winner. If the workload is FP16-dominated and power-sensitive, the B200’s specialized throughput and lower TDP give it a distinct edge. Both GPUs sit at the 100th percentile against all GPUs, so neither is a weak choice — the decision hinges on whether raw bandwidth and capacity or FP16 specialization matters more.