NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single shared benchmark between these two accelerators, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 52,078. This yields a 610.1% advantage for the B300 SXM6 AC, the largest delta recorded in this comparison.

The magnitude of this gap is not merely a linear scaling of specifications. The B300 SXM6 AC sits at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning no recorded accelerator scores higher. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, averages 345,482, which places the B300 just 7% ahead of that part. The NVIDIA H200 NVL trails by 10.4% with an average score of 334,891, and the AMD Instinct MI300X is 16.3% behind at 317,994. The NVIDIA L40S, a high-end workstation card, sits 25% lower at 295,763. Every one of these rivals is a large-format accelerator, and the B300 outpaces all of them.

The RTX A1000, by contrast, occupies the 79th percentile across all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 34,207, which is built from three recorded tests: the OpenCL score of 52,078, a Vulkan score of 49,574, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 969. The A1000's nearest rivals are clustered extremely tightly. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB averages 34,154, just 0.2% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT matches at 34,133, again 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA TITAN V is 0.4% higher at 34,355, and the AMD Radeon RX 480 is 0.6% lower at 33,997. This tight grouping means the A1000's performance is representative of a broad mid-range tier, but that tier is nowhere near the B300's class.

The OpenCL result is the only direct head-to-head measurement, so conclusions about other workloads must be drawn from the architectural data and the percentile positions. The 610.1% delta in this single test is consistent with the massive differences in compute resources: the B300 has 18,944 shading units versus 2,304 for the A1000, and its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS is more than an order of magnitude above the A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS. Benchmark results confirm that the B300 is not just faster; it operates in a different performance stratum.

FAQ

Q: What is the single benchmark result comparing these two cards?

A: The only shared test is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC scores 369,831, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 52,078, giving the B300 a 610.1% lead.

Q: How does the B300 SXM6 AC rank against other accelerators in the database?

A: It holds the 100th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, averages 345,482 (7% lower), followed by the NVIDIA H200 NVL at 334,891 (10.4% lower), the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994 (16.3% lower), and the NVIDIA L40S at 295,763 (25% lower).

Q: Where does the RTX A1000 sit relative to its own competition?

A: The A1000 is at the 79th percentile. Its average score of 34,207 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, 0.2% lower), the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, 0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, 0.6% lower).

Q: Does the RTX A1000 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the A1000 has zero wins, and the B300 has one win. The A1000's own benchmark suite includes Vulkan and 3DMark tests, but there is no shared test where it outperforms the B300.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The B300 SXM6 AC uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards currently in production?

A: Yes. The database lists both as "Active" in production status. The B300 was released on 2025-09-10, and the RTX A1000 on 2024-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different generations and process nodes. The B300 SXM6 AC is built on the GB110 chip using the Blackwell Ultra architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip with the older Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This node difference alone explains a substantial portion of the performance gap, as the B300 packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The A1000 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. It also carries 592 tensor cores. The A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The B300's pixel rate is 48.77 GPixel/s, nearly identical to the A1000's 46.78 GPixel/s, which suggests that rasterization throughput is not the primary differentiator. The texture rate tells a different story: 1,202.9 GTexel/s for the B300 versus 105.3 GTexel/s for the A1000, an order of magnitude difference.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The B300 uses 288 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s. The B300's memory bandwidth is roughly 43 times higher, which is critical for large-scale data center workloads. The B300 lists no display outputs, while the A1000 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The B300 also has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds are also divergent. The B300 runs at a base of 1665 MHz and boosts to 2032 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The A1000 runs at a base of 727 MHz and boosts to 1462 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The B300 draws up to 1100 W with a suggested PSU of 1500 W, while the A1000 draws only 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The B300 is an SXM module, while the A1000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two products into entirely different market segments. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is a server-class accelerator designed for maximum compute throughput, evidenced by its 100th percentile ranking, its 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and its 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. It has no display outputs and no graphics API support, confirming that it is not intended for any interactive or rendering workload. Its nearest rivals are all large-format accelerators, and it leads them by 7% to 25%.

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is a workstation card aimed at professional graphics and light compute tasks. Its 79th percentile ranking and its tight clustering with mid-range rivals (all within 0.6% of its average score) place it firmly in the mainstream tier. It supports modern graphics APIs, provides four display outputs, and fits in a single slot with a 50 W power draw. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for many workstation tasks but is not comparable to the B300's 288 GB HBM3e.

For any workload that stresses raw compute, memory bandwidth, or large data sets, the B300 is the clear choice based on the 610.1% OpenCL lead and its position above all recorded rivals. For workstation graphics, display output, or low-power deployment, the A1000 is the only one of the two that supports those functions at all. The B300 has no display outputs and no graphics API support, so it cannot replace the A1000 in any interactive role. Conversely, the A1000's performance is not in the same class as the B300 for server-scale compute.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the recorded database.

| Field | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC | NVIDIA RTX A1000 |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell Ultra | Ampere |

| Generation | Server Blackwell (Bxx) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 208,000 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 1628 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 127.8M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1665 MHz | 727 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2032 MHz | 1462 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 18944 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 592 | 72 |

| ROPs | 24 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | 592 | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.77 GPixel/s | 46.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,202.9 GTexel/s | 105.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 76.99 TFLOPS | 6.737 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1100 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| 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 |

| Length | Not listed | 163 mm (6.4 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2025-09-10 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Server Rubin | Workstation Ada |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins in every recorded compute benchmark. The only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a 610.1% advantage. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 76.99 TFLOPS, which is more than 11 times the A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s is over 11 times higher, and its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is over 42 times higher. The B300 also leads in transistor count, die size, and tensor core count, making it the dominant choice for any workload that can use its server form factor. Its 288 GB memory capacity is 36 times larger than the A1000's 8 GB, which matters for large model inference or training data sets.

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins in areas that the B300 does not address at all. The A1000 has four display outputs, while the B300 has none. The A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 lists N/A for all three. The A1000 also has 18 RT cores, which the B300 does not list. For any interactive graphics, rendering, or workstation visualization task, the A1000 is the only functional choice. The A1000 also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms, drawing 50 W versus 1100 W, and on physical footprint, fitting in a single slot at 163 mm length versus the B300's SXM module format. The A1000's pixel rate of 46.78 GPixel/s is close to the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s, indicating that the A1000 is not severely disadvantaged in basic raster output, but that metric does not overcome its massive deficits in every other compute category.