NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074. That places the B300 SXM6 AC 373.7% ahead of the RTX 2000 Ada Generation in this compute test. The delta is so large that the RTX 2000 Ada Generation would need to more than quadruple its score to match the B300 SXM6 AC.

Looking at the B300 SXM6 AC against its nearest rivals in the database, the score of 369,831 places it 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200 (345,482), 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891), 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 25% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763). The B300 SXM6 AC sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no recorded GPU scores higher in this benchmark.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation, by contrast, sits at the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rivals in the database are all within a very tight band: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18,866, delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, delta -0.5%). The RTX 2000 Ada Generation's average benchmark score is 18,954, which is roughly one-twentieth of the B300 SXM6 AC's single recorded score.

The B300 SXM6 AC also has additional benchmark data in the form of other tests where the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has results but no head-to-head comparison exists. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,767, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 83,360, and a Passmark G3D score of 16,927. These are not directly comparable to the B300 SXM6 AC, which has no such tests recorded. The data indicates the B300 SXM6 AC is a compute-focused part, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a broader set of graphics-oriented benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip, built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture, and belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, and belongs to the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The B300 SXM6 AC packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, with a density of 118.9M per mm². The B300 SXM6 AC has the larger die by a factor of about 10.2, and the transistor count is about 11 times higher.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock for both is listed as 2000 MHz, but the effective rates differ: 8 Gbps effective for the B300 SXM6 AC versus 16 Gbps effective for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The bus width difference is the dominant factor, as the B300 SXM6 AC has 64 times the bus width.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The B300 SXM6 AC has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2,816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The B300 SXM6 AC has more shading units and TMUs, but the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has twice the ROP count. Tensor cores are 592 on the B300 SXM6 AC versus 88 on the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. Ray tracing cores are listed as 22 for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation, while the B300 SXM6 AC has no RT core count listed.

Clock speeds are similar in absolute terms. The B300 SXM6 AC has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost of 2032 MHz. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a base of 1620 MHz and a boost of 2130 MHz. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation actually boosts 98 MHz higher, but the massive difference in core count dominates any clock advantage.

Pixel and texture rates highlight the different design philosophies. The B300 SXM6 AC outputs 48.77 GPixel/s and 1,202.9 GTexel/s. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation outputs 102.2 GPixel/s and 187.4 GTexel/s. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has more than double the pixel rate, despite far fewer shading units, because of its higher ROP count and boost clock. The B300 SXM6 AC has a texture rate that is about 6.4 times higher.

FP32 and FP16 performance are listed as 1:1 for both parts. The B300 SXM6 AC delivers 76.99 TFLOPS in both, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS in both. The B300 SXM6 AC is about 6.4 times faster in raw compute throughput.

The B300 SXM6 AC is an SXM module with no display outputs, no power connectors listed, and no API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all N/A). The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a dual-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, no power connectors, and full API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs: PCIe 6.0 x16 for the B300 SXM6 AC versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation.

Power requirements are listed as 1100 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1500 W for the B300 SXM6 AC, versus 70 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The physical dimensions for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation are 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the B300 SXM6 AC has no dimensions listed.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 SXM6 AC wins decisively in any compute-heavy workload. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 369,831 versus 78,074 for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation indicates a 373.7% advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. The FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS versus 12.00 TFLOPS reinforces this, as does the memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The 288 GB memory capacity allows datasets that would never fit in 16 GB.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in graphics-oriented tasks. It has display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the B300 SXM6 AC has none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 SXM6 AC lists N/A for all APIs. Its pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s exceeds the B300 SXM6 AC's 48.77 GPixel/s. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also has ray tracing cores (22), which the B300 SXM6 AC does not list.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,767, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 83,360, and Passmark scores across DirectX 9 (216), DirectX 10 (82), DirectX 11 (138), DirectX 12 (71), G2D (1,072), G3D (16,927), and GPU compute (7,834). These results indicate a part that is usable for a range of workstation graphics tasks, not just compute.

The power envelope is another clear split. The B300 SXM6 AC requires a 1500 W suggested PSU and has a 1100 W TDP, which places it in dedicated server infrastructure. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation runs at 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU, making it feasible for desktop workstations. The B300 SXM6 AC is also an SXM module, meaning it does not plug into a standard PCIe slot; the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a dual-slot card using PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two GPUs with almost no overlap in intended use. The B300 SXM6 AC is a server compute accelerator with a single benchmark result that places it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are other server parts (B200, H200 NVL, MI300X, L40S), and it beats all of them by 7% to 25%. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation graphics card with a benchmark profile spread across graphics and compute tests, sitting at the 63rd percentile.

Anyone selecting the B300 SXM6 AC is prioritizing raw compute throughput, massive memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The 8.19 TB/s bandwidth and 288 GB capacity allow workloads that the RTX 2000 Ada Generation simply cannot handle, such as large model inference or training datasets. The 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance is about 6.4 times the RTX 2000 Ada Generation's 12.00 TFLOPS. The 373.7% Geekbench OpenCL delta confirms this is not a close contest.

Anyone selecting the RTX 2000 Ada Generation needs display outputs, API support, and low power draw. It delivers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 70 W TDP is about 6.3% of the B300 SXM6 AC's 1100 W TDP. It also has more than double the pixel rate (102.2 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s) and has ray tracing cores, which the B300 SXM6 AC does not list.

The B300 SXM6 AC is the clear choice for server-side compute. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear choice for workstation graphics. The data does not indicate any scenario where these two parts compete directly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, which is 373.7% higher than the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation's 78,074.

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

A: The B300 SXM6 AC is 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200 (345,482), 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891), 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 25% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763).

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX 2000 Ada Generation support display outputs?

A: Yes, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The B300 SXM6 AC has no display outputs.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC has a 1100 W TDP with a 1500 W suggested PSU. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s, which is more than double the B300 SXM6 AC's 48.77 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell Ultra | Ada Lovelace |

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

| Chip | GB110 | AD107 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| 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 | 1620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2032 MHz | 2130 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 18944 | 2816 |

| TMUs | 592 | 88 |

| ROPs | 24 | 48 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 22 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 88 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.77 GPixel/s | 102.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,202.9 GTexel/s | 187.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 76.99 TFLOPS | 12.00 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1100 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1500 W | 250 W |

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

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

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2025-09-10 | 2024-02-11 |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | Workstation Ampere |

| Successor | Server Rubin | Blackwell PRO W |

| Launch MSRP | None | 649 USD |