NVIDIA B300 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark score entries for either the NVIDIA B300 or the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both products show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. With no recorded head-to-head benchmark results, the wins counter for each product stands at zero. This means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and calculated throughput rates recorded in the database, rather than on measured application performance.

The compute throughput figures provide the clearest separation between the two parts. The B300 records a FP32 rate of 76.99 TFLOPS, while the N1 16SM records 9.609 TFLOPS. In raw single-precision compute, the B300 delivers approximately 8 times the throughput of the N1 16SM. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided. The B300 lists 1,231.8 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, whereas the N1 16SM lists 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. These figures indicate that the B300 is designed for workloads where FP16 tensor math is heavily accelerated, while the N1 16SM provides balanced FP16 and FP32 rates without special tensor scaling.

Texture and pixel throughput also differ substantially. The B300 records a texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s against 300.3 GTexel/s for the N1 16SM, a ratio of roughly 4 to 1. Pixel rate shows a smaller gap: 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300 versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM. Interestingly, the N1 16SM holds the advantage in pixel fill rate despite having far fewer shading units, which points to a fundamentally different rendering pipeline design.

Memory bandwidth separates the two by an even wider margin. The B300 lists 4.10 TB/s from a 4096-bit HBM3e interface, while the N1 16SM lists 273.2 GB/s from a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface. That is a 15-fold difference in memory bandwidth. The B300 also carries 144 GB of memory versus 128 GB for the N1 16SM, so the capacity advantage is modest, but the bandwidth gap is decisive for data-intensive workloads.

Clock behavior differs in an instructive way. The B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost of 2032 MHz. The N1 16SM has a much lower base of 741 MHz but a higher boost of 2346 MHz. The N1 16SM therefore relies on aggressive boosting to reach its peak rates, while the B300 maintains a higher baseline frequency across sustained loads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B300 records 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, approximately 8 times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1 16SM.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The B300 lists 4.10 TB/s from HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, while the N1 16SM lists 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, a 15-fold difference in favor of the B300.

Q: Does the N1 16SM have any benchmark advantage over the B300?

A: The database records no benchmark wins for either product. Both show zero wins, zero average benchmark score, and a 50th percentile ranking.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate for each GPU?

A: The B300 records 48.77 GPixel/s, while the N1 16SM records 56.30 GPixel/s. The N1 16SM leads in this specific rasterization metric.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated at TSMC on a 5 nm process node.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The B300 carries 144 GB of HBM3e, and the N1 16SM carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X, a 16 GB capacity difference.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two products into entirely different deployment categories. The B300 is a server module with 18,944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, and 592 texture mapping units, paired with 144 GB of HBM3e at 4.10 TB/s. Its FP32 rate of 76.99 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 1,231.8 TFLOPS position it for high-throughput compute tasks, particularly those that can exploit its 16:1 FP16 tensor acceleration. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU indicate a power envelope intended for data center infrastructure.

The N1 16SM is an integrated graphics processor with 2,048 shading units, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. Its 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 and 1:1 FP16 ratio show a more conventional compute balance. The 128 GB LPDDR5X at 273.2 GB/s supports its role as an IGP with display output, including a single HDMI port. The absence of a recorded TDP and the "None" power connector listing suggest it draws power from the host platform rather than a dedicated supply.

Anyone selecting between these two parts should base the decision on the workload type. The B300 serves tasks that need massive memory bandwidth, high FP16 throughput, and large memory capacity. The N1 16SM serves tasks that need a display output, integrated packaging, and moderate compute with balanced FP32/FP16 performance. The pixel rate advantage of the N1 16SM and its higher boost clock do not offset the B300's overwhelming lead in texture rate, memory bandwidth, and raw FP32/FP16 compute.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The B300 uses the GB110 chip with Blackwell Ultra architecture, while the N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The B300 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation, and the N1 16SM belongs to the Blackwell IGP generation.

Shading units count 18,944 on the B300 versus 2,048 on the N1 16SM. Texture mapping units number 592 versus 128. Both have 24 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are not listed for the B300, while the N1 16SM has 16. Tensor cores number 592 on the B300 and 64 on the N1 16SM.

Memory specifications diverge completely. The B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The B300 memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the N1 16SM memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Base clocks are 1665 MHz for the B300 and 741 MHz for the N1 16SM. Boost clocks are 2032 MHz for the B300 and 2346 MHz for the N1 16SM. The B300 carries a 1400 W TDP and lists an 1800 W suggested PSU. The N1 16SM has no TDP recorded and no suggested PSU.

Form factors differ with the B300 as an SXM Module and the N1 16SM as an IGP. Display outputs are "No outputs" for the B300 and a single HDMI for the N1 16SM. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interfaces. The B300 has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and the N1 16SM lists N/A for all three. Release dates are September 2025 for the B300 and May 2026 for the N1 16SM. The B300 predecessor is Server Hopper, successor is Server Rubin, while the N1 16SM has no predecessor or successor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The B300 uses the GB110 chip built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture. The N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture. Both are fabricated at TSMC on a 5 nm process. The B300 has 104,000 million transistors, while the N1 16SM transistor count is listed as unknown. The N1 16SM has a die size of 382 mm², and the B300 die size is not recorded.

The B300 FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio indicates dedicated tensor hardware that operates on packed FP16 operations at sixteen times the FP32 rate. The N1 16SM FP16 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio indicates no such packing, with FP16 and FP32 executing at the same rate. This architectural difference defines the compute character of each part.

The B300 has no display outputs and no recorded ray tracing cores, consistent with a compute accelerator that does not render frames. The N1 16SM includes 16 ray tracing cores and a single HDMI output, confirming its role as a graphics-capable integrated processor. The N1 16SM also has 128 texture mapping units versus 592 on the B300, and 64 tensor cores versus 592 on the B300.

The memory architecture reflects the divergence in purpose. The B300 uses HBM3e with a 4096-bit interface, a configuration that prioritizes bandwidth for large data movement. The N1 16SM uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit interface, a configuration that prioritizes integration with a host system over peak bandwidth. The B300 memory runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate, and the N1 16SM memory runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 wins decisively in compute throughput. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 rate dwarfs the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. Its 1,231.8 TFLOPS FP16 rate, achieved through a 16:1 ratio, opens a gap that no workload on the N1 16SM can approach, since the N1 16SM FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate at 9.609 TFLOPS. Texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s gives the B300 a 4-to-1 advantage in texel processing. Memory bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s gives the B300 a 15-to-1 advantage in data movement capacity. The B300 also carries 16 GB more memory capacity.

The N1 16SM wins in pixel fill rate, recording 56.30 GPixel/s against 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300. This is the only recorded performance metric where the N1 16SM leads. The N1 16SM also has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 2032 MHz for the B300, though its base clock is far lower at 741 MHz versus 1665 MHz. The N1 16SM includes ray tracing cores, which the B300 does not list. The N1 16SM provides a display output via HDMI, while the B300 has no outputs. The N1 16SM uses an IGP form factor with no power connector, while the B300 requires an SXM module slot with a 1400 W TDP and an 1800 W suggested PSU.

Use-case separation follows these recorded figures. The B300 suits server deployments where FP16 tensor throughput at the 16:1 ratio, 4.10 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 144 GB capacity matter for large-scale compute jobs. The N1 16SM suits integrated graphics tasks where a display output, ray tracing support, and moderate compute at 9.609 TFLOPS FP32/FP16 meet the requirements of a host processor. The pixel rate advantage of the N1 16SM, combined with its HDMI output, supports its role as a rendering device rather than a pure compute accelerator.