NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA B200 is in an entirely different performance class. The recorded data shows a single OpenCL benchmark where the B200 scores 345,482 against the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74,179, a delta of 365.7%. That is not a close contest; it is a generational chasm. The B200 sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 sits at the 94th. For anyone needing maximum compute throughput for server workloads, the B200 is the obvious choice. The Quadro RTX 6000, however, is an end-of-life product with a dual-slot form factor, display outputs, and a 260 W TDP. It is suited for legacy workstation environments where software is already certified, or where a physical card with four DisplayPort connections is required. Strictly from the data, the B200 wins the single recorded benchmark, but the Quadro RTX 6000 wins on compatibility with existing displays and power infrastructure. The B200 has no display outputs, so it is not a replacement for a workstation card. The choice hinges on whether the task is pure number crunching or visual output.

Architecture Differences

The B200 uses the GB100 chip built on Blackwell architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 104,000 million transistors. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with 18,600 million transistors. The B200’s die size is not recorded, but the Quadro’s is 754 mm². The B200 has a transistor density that is not stated, while the Quadro lists 24.7M per mm². The B200 is a server module (SXM) with no display outputs, while the Quadro is a dual-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The B200 is on PCIe 5.0 x16, the Quadro on PCIe 3.0 x16. The B200 has a suggested power supply of 1400 W, the Quadro 600 W. The B200’s TDP is 1000 W, the Quadro’s 260 W. The B200 has no power connector listed, while the Quadro uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. The B200’s memory is 90 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, while the Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. The B200’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), and the Quadro’s is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The B200’s memory bandwidth is 4.10 TB/s, the Quadro’s is 672.0 GB/s. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The B200 has no RT cores listed; the Quadro has 72. The B200 has 592 tensor cores; the Quadro has 576. The B200’s base clock is 700 MHz with a boost of 1965 MHz; the Quadro’s base is 1440 MHz with a boost of 1770 MHz. The B200’s pixel rate is 47.16 GPixel/s, the Quadro’s is 169.9 GPixel/s. The B200’s texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, the Quadro’s is 509.8 GTexel/s. The B200’s FP32 is 74.45 TFLOPS, the Quadro’s is 16.31 TFLOPS. The B200’s FP16 is 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1), the Quadro’s is 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1). The B200 has no API support listed; the Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The B200 wins decisively in compute workloads. The OpenCL benchmark score of 345,482 is not just higher; it is 365.7% higher than the Quadro’s 74,179. The B200 also leads its nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL, by 3.2%, and it trails the B300 SXM6 AC by 6.6%. That puts it right at the top of the server compute hierarchy. The B200’s FP32 throughput of 74.45 TFLOPS is 4.5 times the Quadro’s, and its FP16 throughput is 36.5 times higher. Memory bandwidth is 6.1 times higher. The B200 is built for massive parallel workloads, large models, and data center tasks. The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, is a workstation card. It has display outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it has a 260 W TDP, meaning it can be powered by a typical workstation PSU. The Quadro wins on portability and integration, but it loses on every recorded compute benchmark. In the database, the Quadro’s nearest rivals are all AMD cards (RX 7900M, Pro VII, Pro Vega II Duo, Pro W6600X), with deltas ranging from 4.5% to 5.1%. So the Quadro is competitive within its own generation, but that generation is Turing, not Blackwell.

FAQ

Q: Is the NVIDIA B200 faster than the Quadro RTX 6000 in all recorded tests?

A: Yes. The only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the B200 scores 345,482 and the Quadro scores 74,179, a 365.7% difference. The B200 wins 1 out of 1 tests.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The single recorded benchmark, geekbench_opencl, shows a delta of 365.7%. That is the only head-to-head test in the database.

Q: Can the B200 replace the Quadro RTX 6000 in a desktop workstation?

A: No. The B200 has no display outputs, while the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The B200 is a server module (SXM), not a dual-slot card.

Q: How do the tensor cores compare?

A: The B200 has 592 tensor cores, the Quadro has 576. The B200 also has 18,944 shading units versus 4,608. So the B200 has both more cores and higher clock rates, but the exact tensor performance is not listed beyond the FP16 numbers.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has a higher pixel rate at 169.9 GPixel/s versus the B200’s 47.16 GPixel/s. This is one area where the older card wins.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The B200 is listed as Active, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is listed as End-of-life. The Quadro’s release date is 2018-08-12, and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head test is geekbench_opencl. The B200 scores 345,482, and the Quadro scores 74,179. The B200 wins by 365.7%. To put that in context, the B200’s nearest rival, the H200 NVL, scores 334,891, which is 3.2% lower. The B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, which is 6.6% higher. So the B200 is the second-fastest card in its own server class, and the Quadro is nowhere near that tier. The Quadro’s percentile is 94, meaning 6% of all GPUs are faster, but the B200 is in the top percentile. The B200’s FP32 of 74.45 TFLOPS is the most direct compute measure, and the Quadro’s FP32 of 16.31 TFLOPS is 4.5 times less. The B200’s FP16 of 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) is 36.6 times the Quadro’s 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1). Memory bandwidth: the B200 has 4.10 TB/s, the Quadro 672.0 GB/s, which is a 6.1 times gap. The B200’s texture rate is 1,163.3 GTexel/s, the Quadro’s is 509.8 GTexel/s, a 2.3 times difference. The Quadro does have a higher pixel rate, 169.9 versus 47.16, which is a 3.6 times advantage for the Quadro. That matters for rasterization-heavy tasks, but the Quadro’s pixel rate is still low by modern server standards. The B200 has 90 GB of memory versus 24 GB, a 3.75 times capacity advantage. The B200’s memory bus is 4096-bit vs 384-bit, a 10.7 times width advantage, but the bandwidth is only 6.1 times due to the slower memory clock.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA B200 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell | Turing |

| Chip | GB100 | TU102 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 1440 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 4096 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 4,608 |

| TMUs | 592 | 288 |

| ROPs | 24 | 96 |

| RT Cores | Not recorded | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 576 |

| Pixel Rate | 47.16 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,163.3 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 74.45 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 260 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX | Not recorded | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | Not recorded | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.4 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2018-08-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 6,299 USD (stated once) |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | Server Rubin | Workstation Ampere |