NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two devices: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 scores 90,334 points. This yields a delta of 309.4 percent in favor of the B300 SXM6 AC. That is a four-fold advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload, a margin that reflects the fundamental positioning of the two products rather than any subtle tuning difference.

For context, the B300 SXM6 AC sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA B200 at 345,482 points (7 percent behind), the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 points (10.4 percent behind), the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 points (16.3 percent behind), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 points (25 percent behind). These deltas show a tightly grouped tier of high-end accelerators, with the B300 SXM6 AC leading that pack by a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. The RTX 5050 has no comparable head-to-head result in the database beyond the OpenCL test.

The RTX 5050, by contrast, holds the 66th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster very closely around its average score of 21,035 points. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21,153 (0.6 percent behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21,237 (1 percent behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT scores 20,713 (1.6 percent ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 21,379 (1.6 percent behind). The RTX 5050's position in that cluster indicates it competes with mid-range and older high-end mobile parts, not with server accelerators.

The RTX 5050 does offer additional benchmark coverage that the B300 SXM6 AC lacks. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 it records 2,502 points. Passmark results include DirectX 9 at 186 points, DirectX 10 at 103 points, DirectX 11 at 150 points, DirectX 12 at 66 points, G2D at 1,113 points, G3D at 17,326 points, and GPU Compute at 9,184 points. Geekbench Vulkan returns 89,381 points. These figures give a broader picture of the RTX 5050's capabilities across graphics workloads, but no equivalent data exists for the B300 SXM6 AC, which has no display outputs and no graphics API support in the database.

The wins tally from the head-to-head comparison confirms the direction: the B300 SXM6 AC takes 1 win, the RTX 5050 takes 0. The only shared test is OpenCL, and the server part dominates it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, which is 309.4 percent higher than the RTX 5050's 90,334.

Q: How does the B300 SXM6 AC compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7 percent, the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 10.4 percent, the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3 percent, and the NVIDIA L40S by 25 percent.

Q: What benchmark results exist for the RTX 5050 beyond OpenCL?

A: The RTX 5050 has 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2,502 points, Geekbench Vulkan at 89,381 points, Passmark G3D at 17,326 points, Passmark GPU Compute at 9,184 points, and Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores of 186, 103, 150, and 66 points respectively.

Q: Where does the RTX 5050 rank among all GPUs?

A: It sits at the 66th percentile. Its closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 0.6 percent behind, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M at 1 percent behind, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT at 1.6 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile at 1.6 percent behind.

Q: Does the B300 SXM6 AC support graphics APIs?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as not applicable, and the card has no display outputs.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC averages 369,831 points, while the RTX 5050 averages 21,035 points.

The Verdict

The data separates these two products into entirely different performance tiers. The B300 SXM6 AC delivers an OpenCL score of 369,831, placing it at the 100th percentile and ahead of every recorded rival by at least 7 percent. The RTX 5050 delivers 90,334 in the same test, a 309.4 percent deficit, and sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs. No benchmark in the database suggests any scenario where the RTX 5050 approaches the B300 SXM6 AC in compute performance.

The B300 SXM6 AC is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, as evidenced by its position atop the database's GPU rankings. Its nearest competition comes from other server accelerators, not from consumer parts. The RTX 5050 targets a different use case entirely. Its benchmark profile includes graphics-specific tests such as 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Passmark DirectX variants, which the B300 SXM6 AC cannot run due to its lack of graphics API support and display outputs. The RTX 5050's cluster of rivals, all within 1.6 percent of its average score, shows it competes in the mid-range segment where its 13.17 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 8 GB memory capacity are sufficient.

The verdict follows the data directly. The B300 SXM6 AC is for compute-bound server deployments. The RTX 5050 is for graphics and general-purpose tasks where its API support, display connectivity, and compact dual-slot form factor apply. The 309.4 percent OpenCL gap leaves no ambiguity about which part is faster in raw compute, but the RTX 5050's broader benchmark coverage and graphics feature set mean the two are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip, while the RTX 5050 uses GB207. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 208,000 million for the B300 versus 16,900 million for the RTX 5050. Die size also differs, at 1628 mm² compared to 149 mm². Transistor density favors the B300 at 127.8 million transistors per mm² versus 113.4 million for the RTX 5050.

Clock speeds run in opposite directions. The B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost of 2032 MHz, while the RTX 5050 starts at 2317 MHz and boosts to 2572 MHz. Memory configurations are entirely different: the B300 carries 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 5050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. Effective memory clocks are 8 Gbps for the B300 and 20 Gbps for the RTX 5050.

Compute resources show the B300's scale. It has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The RTX 5050 has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The B300 has no listed RT core count. Pixel rates favor the RTX 5050 at 82.30 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s, but texture rates favor the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 205.8 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 76.99 TFLOPS for the B300 and 13.17 TFLOPS for the RTX 5050.

Power requirements differ by an order of magnitude. The B300 draws 1100 W with a suggested 1500 W PSU, while the RTX 5050 draws 130 W with a suggested 300 W PSU. The B300 uses an SXM module form factor with no power connector listed; the RTX 5050 is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 6.0 x16 for the B300 versus PCIe 5.0 x8 for the RTX 5050. Display outputs exist only on the RTX 5050, with 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The B300 lists no outputs.

API support is absent for the B300, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked as not applicable. The RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by roughly two and a half months, with the RTX 5050 launching on 2025-06-30 and the B300 on 2025-09-10. The RTX 5050 has a launch MSRP of 249 USD, while the B300 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use a 5 nm TSMC process, but the architectures diverge in naming and implementation. The B300 SXM6 AC belongs to the Blackwell Ultra architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The RTX 5050 uses Blackwell 2.0 in the GeForce 50-series generation. The B300's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin. The RTX 5050's predecessor is GeForce 40 and its successor is GeForce 60.

The GB110 die in the B300 is a massive compute-oriented design. Its 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die with 18,944 shading units and 592 tensor cores indicate a design focused on parallel throughput and memory bandwidth, consistent with its HBM3e memory and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The 24 ROPs are a minimal count for a chip of this scale, reinforcing that the part is not intended for rasterization workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support further confirms its server-only role.

The GB207 die in the RTX 5050 is a conventional consumer graphics processor. Its 16,900 million transistors on a 149 mm² die with 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 20 RT cores reflect a balanced allocation for real-time rendering. The presence of RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and display outputs all point to a client-oriented architecture. The higher clock speeds, 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost, compensate for the lower core count and produce a pixel rate of 82.30 GPixel/s that exceeds the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s.

The memory architectures reflect the divergent purposes. HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus gives the B300 a bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s, essential for large model inference and training workloads. GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus gives the RTX 5050 320.0 GB/s, adequate for a 1080p or entry-level 1440p gaming card. The B300's transistor density of 127.8 million transistors per mm² is higher than the RTX 5050's 113.4 million, indicating a denser packing of compute logic on the server die.

Power delivery and cooling also differ structurally. The B300's 1100 W TDP and SXM module form factor require server-class power and thermal management, while the RTX 5050's 130 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 8-pin connector suit a standard desktop power supply. The suggested PSU ratings, 1500 W for the B300 and 300 W for the RTX 5050, quantify the system-level requirements. These architectural differences explain the benchmark gap: the B300 is built to maximize compute density and bandwidth, while the RTX 5050 is built to maximize efficiency and graphics feature support within a consumer power envelope.