NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile in raw compute benchmarks?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, while the RTX 4050 Mobile scores 74,748. That gives the B300 a 394.8% advantage, and it is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded between the two.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU among all recorded GPUs?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC sits at the 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database. The RTX 4050 Mobile is at the 63rd percentile, placing it above roughly six out of ten GPUs.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC contains 208,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4050 Mobile has 18,900 million. The B300 also has a much larger die at 1628 mm² compared to 159 mm² for the mobile chip.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two NVIDIA parts?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

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

A: The B300 SXM6 AC scores 7% higher than the B200 in average benchmark scores. It is also 10.4% ahead of the H200 NVL, 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 25% ahead of the L40S.

Q: Does the RTX 4050 Mobile have any benchmark results beyond OpenCL?

A: Yes, it has results in Vulkan, Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute. Its highest Passmark result is 14,423 in G3D, while its Vulkan score is 75,235.

Architecture Differences

The B300 SXM6 AC and RTX 4050 Mobile share the same 5 nm TSMC manufacturing process, but they diverge sharply in every other architectural dimension. The B300 uses the GB110 chip under the Blackwell Ultra architecture, while the RTX 4050 Mobile uses the AD107 chip under Ada Lovelace. The B300 is part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, whereas the RTX 4050 Mobile belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation.

Transistor density tells a partial story: the B300 packs 127.8 million transistors per mm², while the RTX 4050 Mobile achieves 118.9 million per mm². The absolute scale difference is enormous, with the B300 at 208,000 million transistors and a 1628 mm² die, versus 18,900 million transistors and a 159 mm² die for the mobile part.

Compute resource allocation differs fundamentally. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The B300 also carries 592 tensor cores, while the mobile chip has 80. Notably, the B300 lists no RT cores, whereas the RTX 4050 Mobile includes 20 RT cores, reflecting its consumer gaming focus.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The B300 runs at a base of 1665 MHz and boosts to 2032 MHz. The RTX 4050 Mobile starts at 1455 MHz and boosts to 1755 MHz. Memory clocks are listed as 2000 MHz for both, but the effective data rates differ: 8 Gbps for the B300 and 16 Gbps for the RTX 4050 Mobile.

The memory subsystem is where the architectural gap becomes most obvious. The B300 uses HBM3e with a massive 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses GDDR6 with a 96-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B300 also supports PCIe 6.0 x16, while the mobile part uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The B300 is a server module with no display outputs and no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all listed as N/A). The RTX 4050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Power characteristics reflect their intended environments. The B300 has a TDP of 1100 W and a suggested PSU of 1500 W, while the RTX 4050 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W and no power connectors. The B300 uses an SXM Module slot, while the RTX 4050 Mobile is an IGP.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different products with essentially no overlap in purpose. The B300 SXM6 AC is a server-grade accelerator that sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA B200, H200 NVL, AMD Instinct MI300X, and L40S, all of which it beats by margins ranging from 7% to 25%. The RTX 4050 Mobile, by contrast, sits at the 63rd percentile and its closest competition includes the AMD Radeon RX 6600, NVIDIA Quadro K6000, Tesla K20m, and RTX 2000 Ada Generation, with deltas under 1%.

For compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the B300 delivers 394.8% higher performance than the RTX 4050 Mobile. That single benchmark result dominates any comparison. The B300 also carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory versus 6 GB of GDDR6, and its bandwidth is over 42 times higher when comparing the recorded figures.

The RTX 4050 Mobile does have advantages in specific dimensions. It supports consumer APIs, includes RT cores, has double the ROP count (48 versus 24), and its pixel rate is higher at 84.24 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300. Its power draw is dramatically lower at 50 W versus 1100 W, and its form factor as an IGP allows integration into laptops.

Users requiring maximum compute throughput, massive memory capacity, and server-class bandwidth should look to the B300 SXM6 AC. Users needing a mobile GPU with API support, ray tracing hardware, and low power consumption should consider the RTX 4050 Mobile. The benchmark data does not suggest any scenario where the mobile part competes with the server part on raw performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile |

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

| Chip | GB110 | AD107 |

| Architecture | Blackwell Ultra | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Server Blackwell (Bxx) | GeForce 40 Mobile |

| Transistors | 208,000 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 1628 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 127.8M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1665 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2032 MHz | 1755 MHz |

| Memory Clock Effective | 8 Gbps | 16 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 96 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18944 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 592 | 80 |

| ROPs | 24 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 20 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 80 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.77 GPixel/s | 84.24 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,202.9 GTexel/s | 140.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 76.99 TFLOPS | 8.986 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.986 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1100 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1500 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 6.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2025-09-10 | 2023-01-02 |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | Server Rubin | GeForce 50 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark appears in the recorded head-to-head data: Geekbench OpenCL. The B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, and the RTX 4050 Mobile scores 74,748. The B300 wins with a delta of 394.8%. That is a fractional advantage of roughly five times the mobile GPU’s score, indicating a performance class gap rather than incremental difference.

Context from the nearest rivals strengthens this picture. The B300’s closest competitor, the B200, averages 345,482, which is 7% lower. The H200 NVL averages 334,891, 10.4% lower. The AMD Instinct MI300X averages 317,994, 16.3% lower. The L40S averages 295,763, 25% lower. Each of these rivals is itself a high-end server accelerator, and the B300 still leads them all.

For the RTX 4050 Mobile, the nearest rival data shows a much tighter cluster. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 averages 19,036, just 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030, also 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA Tesla K20m averages 19,089, which is 0.2% higher than the mobile chip. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation averages 18,954, 0.5% lower. The mobile GPU sits within a 1% band of its immediate competitors, which is typical of mid-range consumer parts.

The B300’s OpenCL score of 369,831 is roughly 19.4 times the RTX 4050 Mobile’s average benchmark score of 19,049. Even the B300’s lowest nearest rival, the L40S at 295,763, is far above the mobile GPU’s best recorded single-test score of 75,235 in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 SXM6 AC wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL result is 394.8% higher than the RTX 4050 Mobile, and its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS dwarfs the mobile chip’s 8.986 TFLOPS. Texture rate also favors the B300 heavily: 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 140.4 GTexel/s. Memory capacity and bandwidth are overwhelmingly in the B300’s favor, with 288 GB of HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s versus 6 GB of GDDR6 and 192.0 GB/s.

The RTX 4050 Mobile wins in pixel throughput. Its 84.24 GPixel/s exceeds the B300’s 48.77 GPixel/s, which is notable given the B300’s much larger compute resources. The mobile chip also has more ROPs (48 versus 24) and includes RT cores, which the B300 does not list. API support is another clear win for the mobile GPU: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all present, while the B300 lists N/A for each.

Power efficiency is a third area where the RTX 4050 Mobile excels. Its 50 W TDP is 22 times lower than the B300’s 1100 W. The mobile chip also has no power connectors and works as an IGP, making it suitable for portable devices. The B300 requires a 1500 W suggested PSU and uses an SXM Module slot.

The B300’s release date of 2025-09-10 is later than the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 2023-01-02. The B300 succeeds the Server Hopper generation and precedes Server Rubin, while the RTX 4050 Mobile succeeds GeForce 30 Mobile and precedes GeForce 50 Mobile. Both are listed as Active in production status.

In practical terms, the B300 wins wherever massive memory, extreme bandwidth, and raw FP32/FP16 compute matter. The RTX 4050 Mobile wins wherever pixel fill rate, ray tracing, API compatibility, and low power consumption matter. The recorded data does not show any head-to-head benchmark outside of OpenCL, but the specification differences alone place these products in separate market segments.