NVIDIA B200 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B200 is the decisive winner in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark. The database contains a single comparison test, Geekbench OpenCL, where the B200 outscores the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 176.8%. The B200 records a score of 345,482 against 124,812 for the RTX 4000 SFF. This is not a close contest; the B200 produces nearly three times the raw compute output in this workload.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. However, it does hold two distinct benchmark entries: Geekbench OpenCL at 124,812 and Geekbench Vulkan at 109,364. The B200 has only one recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with no Vulkan result in the database. This means the RTX 4000 SFF is the only one of the two with a cross-API performance profile, which reflects its workstation positioning rather than a compute advantage.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The B200 targets compute-heavy server workloads where raw throughput dominates, as evidenced by its 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The RTX 4000 SFF, at the 95th percentile, sits in a different performance tier entirely, one designed for compact workstations with display outputs and API support. The data indicates the B200 wins every measured compute scenario, while the RTX 4000 SFF wins on versatility in form factor and software ecosystem coverage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and serve different market segments. The B200 uses the GB100 chip on the Blackwell architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 104,000 million transistors. The RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, also 5 nm at TSMC, but with 35,800 million transistors. The B200 carries roughly 2.9 times the transistor count of the RTX 4000 SFF, a massive difference that reflects their divergent roles.

The B200's die size is not recorded, while the RTX 4000 SFF has a 294 mm² die with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². Memory configurations differ fundamentally: the B200 uses 90 GB of HBM3e across a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s bandwidth, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 across a 160-bit bus for 280.0 GB/s. The B200's memory bandwidth is 14.6 times higher, a decisive factor for data-intensive workloads.

Core counts amplify the gap. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The B200 lacks recorded RT cores but compensates with 3 times the shading units and 3 times the tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 2.7 times the ROP count, which helps its pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s against the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The B200 has a base clock of 700 MHz and boost of 1965 MHz, while the RTX 4000 SFF runs at 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. The B200's higher boost clock, combined with its massive core count, drives its FP32 throughput of 74.45 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS for the RTX 4000 SFF. FP16 performance shows the largest architectural split: the B200 delivers 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, while the RTX 4000 SFF provides 19.17 TFLOPS at 1:1. This indicates the B200 prioritizes tensor-heavy mixed-precision work, while the RTX 4000 SFF maintains symmetric FP16/FP32 rates for general compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head test is Geekbench OpenCL. The B200 scores 345,482 against 124,812 for the RTX 4000 SFF, a 176.8% delta. In percentile terms, the B200 ranks at 100 among all GPUs, while the RTX 4000 SFF ranks at 95. The B200's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (3.2% behind), the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC at 369,831 (6.6% ahead), the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 (8.6% behind), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (16.8% behind). The B200 sits squarely in the top tier of server accelerators.

The RTX 4000 SFF's nearest rivals are much closer in score. The NVIDIA GB10 averages 117,393 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 averages 118,976 (1.6% ahead), the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395 (2.4% behind), and the RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944 (2.8% behind). This cluster of scores, all within a few percentage points of each other, shows the RTX 4000 SFF competing in a dense mid-range workstation field. The B200, by contrast, operates in a sparser high-end space where rivals are either close peers or clearly trailing.

The delta between the two cards is not incremental; it spans performance tiers. The B200's score is 2.77 times the RTX 4000 SFF's score. No other comparison in the database for either card shows such a wide gap. The B200's nearest competitor, the B300 SXM6 AC, is only 6.6% ahead, while the RTX 4000 SFF's nearest competitor, the Radeon PRO W7700, is 1.6% ahead. The B200 is a top-tier accelerator; the RTX 4000 SFF is a capable mid-range workstation card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA B200 scores 345,482, which is 176.8% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation's 124,812.

Q: Does the RTX 4000 SFF support any graphics API that the B200 does not?

A: Yes. The RTX 4000 SFF supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 has no recorded API support in the database.

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

A: The B200 has 90 GB of HBM3e memory, while the RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6. The B200 also has a 4096-bit bus versus 160-bit, and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth versus 280.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s, which is higher than the B200's 47.16 GPixel/s. This is due to the RTX 4000 SFF having 64 ROPs versus the B200's 24 ROPs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in FP16 performance?

A: The B200 delivers 1,191.2 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, while the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The B200's FP16 is optimized for tensor-heavy work, while the RTX 4000 SFF treats FP16 and FP32 equally.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The B200 is an SXM module with a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The RTX 4000 SFF is a dual-slot card with a 70 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA B200 | NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell | Ada Lovelace |

| Chip | GB100 | AD104 |

| Generation | Server Blackwell (Bxx) | Workstation Ada (x000A) |

| Transistors | 104,000 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | 720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1965 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 90 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 4096 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 4.10 TB/s | 280.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18,944 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 592 | 192 |

| ROPs | 24 | 64 |

| RT Cores | Not recorded | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 47.16 GPixel/s | 99.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,163.3 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 74.45 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,191.2 TFLOPS (16:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | Not recorded | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 168 mm length, 69 mm height |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the NVIDIA B200 is for compute density, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is for compact workstation deployment. The B200 wins the only recorded benchmark by 176.8%, ranks at the 100th percentile among all GPUs, and delivers 74.45 TFLOPS FP32 with 90 GB of HBM3e. Its nearest rival, the B300 SXM6 AC, is only 6.6% ahead, meaning the B200 is near the top of the server accelerator stack. Anyone needing maximum OpenCL throughput, massive memory bandwidth, or tensor-heavy FP16 performance should choose the B200.

The RTX 4000 SFF, however, holds advantages that matter in different contexts. It has display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, a 70 W TDP with no external power connectors, and a compact dual-slot 168 mm length. Its pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s exceeds the B200's, and its 1:1 FP16 ratio indicates balanced compute for general workloads. Its nearest rivals (GB10, Radeon PRO W7700, Tesla V100 SXM2) are all within 2.8%, showing it sits in a competitive mid-range field rather than a top-tier one.

The choice depends on environment. The B200 requires a server chassis, a 1400 W PSU, and PCIe 5.0, with no display capability. The RTX 4000 SFF fits into a workstation with a 250 W PSU, uses PCIe 4.0, and drives displays directly. Benchmark results indicate the B200 is the performance king, but the RTX 4000 SFF is the only one of the two that can function as a standalone graphics card. If the workload is pure compute, the B200 is the clear pick. If the workload requires graphics output, API compatibility, or low power draw in a small chassis, the RTX 4000 SFF is the appropriate choice. The recorded data does not support any scenario where the RTX 4000 SFF outperforms the B200 in raw compute, but it does support scenarios where the RTX 4000 SFF is the only viable option.