NVIDIA B300 vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records only one direct performance measurement for this pair, and it belongs to the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the SXM6 AC variant posts a score of 369,831. The base NVIDIA B300 has no recorded benchmark scores, so a direct numerical comparison between the two cannot be established from the available data. This absence of a score for the B300 leaves the SXM6 AC as the only data point for evaluating compute performance in this pairing.

The SXM6 AC's recorded score positions it at the 100th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning it sits at the top of the distribution. Its average benchmark score of 369,831 is the sole contributor to that percentile rank. The nearest rival data provides context for where this score lands in the broader competitive field. The SXM6 AC leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, based on the rival's average score of 345,482. It also outperforms the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891, by 10.4%. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X, the lead expands to 16.3%, as that part scores 317,994. The gap grows further against the NVIDIA L40S, with the SXM6 AC finishing 25% ahead of the L40S's 295,763.

These deltas indicate a clear performance hierarchy. The SXM6 AC does not merely edge out its competition; it establishes a ladder of increasing margins. The 7% gap over the B200 is the tightest contest, suggesting the B200 is the closest architectural relative in raw compute. The 10.4% margin over the H200 NVL shows a step up, while the 16.3% and 25% gaps over the MI300X and L40S respectively demonstrate a widening advantage against non-Blackwell Ultra parts. The data implies that the SXM6 AC's compute lead grows as the rival parts move further from its architecture generation.

Because the base B300 lacks any benchmark entries, the head-to-head section must rely entirely on the SXM6 AC's performance profile. The wins count for the pairing is 0 for the base B300 and 0 for the SXM6 AC in the headToHeadBenchmarks field, which is empty. The recorded winsB of 0 reflects that no direct test pitting the two against each other exists. The only measurable outcome is the SXM6 AC's standalone score and its percentile placement.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward selection criterion: the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is the part with verified compute performance, while the base NVIDIA B300 has none recorded. For any workload that depends on measurable OpenCL throughput, the SXM6 AC is the only option with evidence in the database. Its 369,831 score and 100th percentile rank place it at the apex of all tested GPUs, which makes it the default choice for applications where raw compute is the deciding factor.

The base B300, lacking benchmarks, cannot be assessed on performance grounds. Its inclusion in the database without scores suggests it may serve a different role, possibly as a reference designation or a variant with unverified capabilities. The SXM6 AC, by contrast, delivers a concrete result that outpaces every named rival by margins ranging from 7% to 25%. The closest competitor, the B200, trails by 7%, which is a meaningful but not overwhelming gap. The data indicates that the SXM6 AC is the stronger part for compute-intensive tasks, and the base B300 offers no measured advantage.

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous. The SXM6 AC wins on the only metric that exists. The base B300 cannot claim any benchmark victory because none are recorded. Users requiring a server GPU with a known performance profile should look to the SXM6 AC. The base B300 remains an unknown quantity in this database, and the absence of scores means it carries no performance recommendation.

Architecture Differences

Both parts share the same fundamental architecture. The chip is GB110, built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture, and manufactured by NVIDIA on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The generation is listed as "Server Blackwell (Bxx)" for both. The predecessor is "Server Hopper" and the successor is "Server Rubin" for both parts, placing them in the same product lineage.

The transistor counts diverge significantly. The base B300 has 104,000 million transistors, while the SXM6 AC has 208,000 million. That is exactly double the transistor count for the SXM6 AC. The die size is only listed for the SXM6 AC at 1628 mm², and its transistor density is 127.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The base B300 has no die size or density recorded. The doubling of transistors without a change in the chip name suggests the SXM6 AC uses a larger or dual-die configuration, though the database does not specify the physical arrangement.

The memory architecture also differs. The base B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, yielding 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The SXM6 AC doubles the memory to 288 GB, doubles the bus width to 8192 bit, and doubles the bandwidth to 8.19 TB/s. These are exact 2x increases across memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. The memory clock is identical at 2000 MHz, with 8 Gbps effective for both.

Compute resources are largely the same. Both parts have 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 48.77 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 1,202.9 GTexel/s for both. The FP32 throughput is identical at 76.99 TFLOPS. The FP16 numbers differ in presentation: the base B300 shows 1,231.8 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, while the SXM6 AC shows 76.99 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This indicates the base B300 uses a higher ratio for FP16 throughput, while the SXM6 AC reports a direct 1:1 figure.

The bus interface differs. The base B300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the SXM6 AC uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The SXM6 AC also lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan APIs as N/A, while the base B300 has no API entries at all. Neither part has display outputs.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows where the two parts diverge. The transistor count is the most prominent difference: 104,000 million for the base B300 versus 208,000 million for the SXM6 AC. The SXM6 AC adds a die size of 1628 mm² and a transistor density of 127.8M / mm², both absent for the base B300.

Memory specifications differ on every axis. The base B300 has 144 GB, the SXM6 AC has 288 GB. The bus width is 4096 bit for the base B300 and 8192 bit for the SXM6 AC. Bandwidth is 4.10 TB/s versus 8.19 TB/s. The memory type is HBM3e for both, and the clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for both.

The FP16 TFLOPS figure differs in ratio and value. The base B300 shows 1,231.8 TFLOPS at 16:1, while the SXM6 AC shows 76.99 TFLOPS at 1:1. The FP32 TFLOPS are identical at 76.99. The TDP differs: the base B300 is rated at 1400 W, while the SXM6 AC is rated at 1100 W. The suggested PSU follows suit, with 1800 W for the base B300 and 1500 W for the SXM6 AC.

The bus interface differs as noted: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the base B300, PCIe 6.0 x16 for the SXM6 AC. The SXM6 AC has API listings of N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the base B300 has no API entries. Both are SXM Module slot width, have no display outputs, and share the same release date of 2025-09-10. Both are marked Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: What is the recorded benchmark score for the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC?

A: The SXM6 AC scores 369,831 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, with an average benchmark score of 369,831.

Q: Does the base NVIDIA B300 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The base B300 has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: How does the SXM6 AC compare to the NVIDIA B200?

A: The SXM6 AC scores 7% higher than the B200, which has an average score of 345,482.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two parts?

A: The base B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e, while the SXM6 AC has 288 GB of HBM3e, a doubling in capacity.

Q: Which part has a higher TDP?

A: The base B300 has a TDP of 1400 W, while the SXM6 AC has a TDP of 1100 W. The suggested PSU is 1800 W for the base B300 and 1500 W for the SXM6 AC.

Q: Are the transistor counts the same for both parts?

A: No. The base B300 has 104,000 million transistors, while the SXM6 AC has 208,000 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data gives the SXM6 AC a clear win in the only benchmark category available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 369,831 places it at the 100th percentile, and it beats every named rival by a margin between 7% and 25%. The SXM6 AC is the part to choose when the workload demands verified compute throughput, as measured by OpenCL. Its advantage over the B200, H200 NVL, MI300X, and L40S is quantified, and those margins are the only direct performance comparisons in the database.

The base B300 has no benchmark wins because it has no benchmark results. It cannot be said to win any use case based on measured performance. However, it does have a lower TDP at 1400 W compared to the SXM6 AC's 1100 W, meaning the base B300 actually draws more power according to the spec sheet. The base B300 also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the SXM6 AC uses PCIe 6.0 x16, so the SXM6 AC has the newer bus interface. The base B300's higher FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio could indicate a different compute path, but no benchmark exists to validate it.

The SXM6 AC wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, and bus width, all doubled relative to the base B300. It also wins on transistor count, with 208,000 million versus 104,000 million. The SXM6 AC has a lower power draw and a faster bus interface. The only specification where the base B300 shows a numerical advantage is the FP16 TFLOPS figure, which is listed at a different ratio. The SXM6 AC's 76.99 TFLOPS at 1:1 is the same number as its FP32, while the base B300's 1,231.8 TFLOPS at 16:1 suggests a different precision handling.

For use cases, the SXM6 AC is the clear pick for any task that relies on OpenCL compute, memory bandwidth, or large memory capacity. The base B300, with no recorded scores, cannot be recommended for any measured workload. The data shows that the SXM6 AC is the dominant part in every category where a number exists.