NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database for this pairing is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445. That is a delta of 295.1%, meaning the B200 delivers nearly four times the OpenCL throughput of the GP100. No other benchmark results are recorded for this head-to-head comparison, so the entire performance picture rests on this single measurement.

To put that in context, the B200 sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, which is the top of the distribution. The Quadro GP100, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile. That gap in percentile ranking is substantial, and the raw score difference confirms it. The B200's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, which is 6.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which is 3.2% behind. The AMD Instinct MI300X trails the B200 by 8.6%, and the NVIDIA L40S trails by 16.8%. The B200 is not merely ahead of the GP100; it is competitive with the fastest server accelerators currently recorded in the database.

The Quadro GP100, for its part, is not without company near its own score. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, which is 0.4% ahead, and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, which is 2.1% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile sits 4% ahead, and the desktop RTX A4500 sits 4.6% ahead. These are all much closer margins than anything involving the B200. The GP100 is grouped with mid-range workstation and mobile parts, while the B200 is grouped with flagship data center accelerators.

The delta of 295.1% is the largest single-metric margin in this comparison. In practical terms, the B200 completes the same OpenCL workload in roughly a quarter of the time, assuming linear scaling. That is not a refinement or an incremental improvement; it is a generational leap that dwarfs the architectural differences discussed later in this analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins the only recorded benchmark, so it takes the sole victory in the head-to-head tally. The database records 1 win for the B200 and 0 for the Quadro GP100. There are no workloads in the recorded data where the GP100 comes out ahead. That does not mean the GP100 is useless; it means that within the measured results, the B200 is dominant across the board.

The B200's OpenCL score of 345,482 places it in a performance class shared with the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC and the NVIDIA H200 NVL. The B300 is 6.6% faster, which is the only recorded instance of any GPU beating the B200 among its nearest rivals. The H200 NVL is 3.2% slower, and the AMD Instinct MI300X is 8.6% slower. The NVIDIA L40S, a workstation-oriented card, is 16.8% behind. So the B200 is not just faster than the GP100; it is in the top tier of all recorded accelerators, with only the B300 ahead of it in its immediate rival group.

The Quadro GP100's score of 87,445 puts it near the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and RTX A4500 Mobile, with deltas of 4.6% and 4% respectively. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is essentially a tie at 0.4% ahead, and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is 2.1% behind. This cluster of scores suggests the GP100 remains competitive with mid-range workstation GPUs from much later generations, but it is not in the same league as the B200. For workloads that stress OpenCL compute, the recorded data gives the B200 a clear and overwhelming advantage.

Use-case splits must follow the data. The B200 is the choice for any OpenCL-heavy compute workload where the recorded benchmark is representative. The GP100, with its 93rd percentile ranking, is still above the vast majority of GPUs in the database, but its nearest rivals are workstation and mobile parts, not data center accelerators. If a workload fits the GP100's performance class, it would also fit the RTX A4500 class, and the B200 is simply in a different tier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA B200 beats the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 by 295.1% in the only recorded benchmark, with a score of 345,482 versus 87,445. The B200 is at the 100th percentile among all GPUs, while the GP100 is at the 93rd. For any application where OpenCL performance is the limiting factor, the B200 is the only rational choice from this pairing.

The B200's nearest rivals tell the same story. It is 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 8.6% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 16.8% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S. Only the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC beats it, by 6.6%. This is flagship territory. The Quadro GP100, meanwhile, trades blows with the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, and the RTX A4500 series, all within roughly 5% of its score. It is a competent mid-range workstation part, but it is not a data center accelerator.

Who should pick the B200? Anyone running OpenCL compute workloads that need maximum throughput. The recorded data shows it is nearly four times faster than the GP100, and it outperforms or matches every rival in its immediate database cluster except the B300. Who should pick the Quadro GP100? Only someone constrained by legacy software, driver requirements, or a system that cannot accommodate a 1000 W SXM module. From a pure performance standpoint, the recorded benchmark provides no reason to choose the GP100 over the B200.

The production status also matters. The B200 is listed as active, while the GP100 is end-of-life. The GP100's successor is listed as Quadro Volta, and its predecessor is Quadro Maxwell, so it belongs to a closed generation. The B200's successor is Server Rubin, and its predecessor is Server Hopper, so it is part of an ongoing product line. The database records the B200 as the clear winner in performance, percentile ranking, and production availability.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA B200 than the Quadro GP100 in OpenCL?

A: The B200 scores 345,482 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GP100 scores 87,445. That is a 295.1% difference, so the B200 is roughly four times faster in this workload.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The B200 is at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Quadro GP100 is at the 93rd percentile.

Q: Which GPUs are closest to the B200 in performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is 6.6% faster, the NVIDIA H200 NVL is 3.2% slower, the AMD Instinct MI300X is 8.6% slower, and the NVIDIA L40S is 16.8% slower.

Q: Which GPUs are closest to the Quadro GP100 in performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is 0.4% faster, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is 2.1% slower, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is 4% faster, and the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 is 4.6% faster.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The B200 is listed as active in the database. The Quadro GP100 is end-of-life.

Q: What are the successors to these GPUs?

A: The B200's successor is Server Rubin, and its predecessor is Server Hopper. The GP100's successor is Quadro Volta, and its predecessor is Quadro Maxwell.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The B200 uses the Blackwell architecture on the GB100 chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro GP100 uses the Pascal architecture on the GP100 chip, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The B200 packs 104,000 million transistors, while the GP100 has 15,300 million. That is a 6.8 times difference in transistor count. The GP100's die size is recorded at 610 mm², which gives it a transistor density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The B200's die size is not recorded in the database, so no direct density comparison is possible.

The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. So the B200 has about 5.3 times the shading units and 2.6 times the TMUs, but the GP100 has 4 times the ROPs. This is an unusual split. The B200's pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s, which is lower than the GP100's 138.5 GPixel/s, because the GP100 has far more ROPs. The B200's texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, versus the GP100's 323.2 GTexel/s, reflecting the B200's much larger TMU count.

The B200 also has 592 tensor cores, while the GP100 has none recorded. This is a fundamental architectural difference: tensor cores are a feature of later NVIDIA architectures, and the Pascal-based GP100 predates them. The B200's FP32 throughput is 74.45 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 1,191.2 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio. The GP100's FP32 throughput is 10.34 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 20.69 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The B200 is 7.2 times faster in FP32 and 57.6 times faster in FP16, though the FP16 comparison is complicated by the different ratio conventions.

The B200's memory is 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s. The GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 on the same 4096-bit bus width, but its bandwidth is only 732.2 GB/s. The B200 has 5.6 times the memory capacity and 5.6 times the bandwidth. The GP100's memory clock is 715 MHz with 1430 Mbps effective, while the B200's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

The B200's clock speeds are 700 MHz base and 1965 MHz boost. The GP100's clocks are 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost. The GP100 actually has a higher base clock, but the B200's boost clock is substantially higher. The B200's TDP is 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The GP100's TDP is 235 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The B200 is an SXM module, while the GP100 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector. The B200 has no display outputs, while the GP100 has 1 DVI and 4 DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The B200 supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the GP100 supports PCIe 3.0 x16. The B200 has no recorded API support entries for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The B200's generation is listed as Server Blackwell (Bxx), and the GP100's generation is Quadro Pascal (Px000).

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem is the largest spec gap. The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, while the GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 with 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 4096-bit bus, but the memory type and effective speed are generations apart. The B200's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, versus the GP100's 715 MHz with 1430 Mbps effective.

The compute units differ significantly. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no tensor cores. The FP32 and FP16 throughput figures reflect these differences: 74.45 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS in FP32, and 1,191.2 TFLOPS versus 20.69 TFLOPS in FP16.

The process node and transistor count are also different. The B200 is on 5 nm with 104,000 million transistors. The GP100 is on 16 nm with 15,300 million transistors and a recorded die size of 610 mm². The B200's die size is not recorded.

The power and physical specifications differ sharply. The B200 has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, and it mounts as an SXM module. The GP100 has a TDP of 235 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, and it is a dual-slot card with one 8-pin power connector. The B200 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the GP100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The B200 has no display outputs; the GP100 has 1 DVI and 4 DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The B200's dimensions are not recorded, while the GP100 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The API support is another differentiator. The B200 has no recorded DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Production status also differs: the B200 is active, and the GP100 is end-of-life. The B200's release date is not recorded, while the GP100 was released on September 30, 2016. The B200's launch MSRP is not recorded, and neither is the GP100's.