NVIDIA B300 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA B300 or the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. The wins tally for each part is also zero, meaning neither product has a measurable performance advantage in the recorded data.

Because no benchmark results exist, the percentile ranking for both GPUs sits at 50, which is the neutral midpoint used by the database when no performance data is available. This does not indicate parity in real-world performance; it simply reflects the absence of recorded measurements.

The lack of scores makes direct performance comparison impossible from the recorded data. However, the specification differences between the two parts are substantial and provide a basis for understanding their relative positioning. The B300 is a server-class accelerator with far larger compute resources, while the N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor with a much smaller shader array.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common foundry and process node. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. That is where the architectural similarities end.

The NVIDIA B300 uses the GB110 chip and belongs to the Blackwell Ultra architecture. Its generation is listed as Server Blackwell (Bxx). The chip contains 104,000 million transistors. The B300 is a discrete SXM module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. It has no display outputs, indicating it is designed exclusively for compute workloads in server environments.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip and belongs to the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. Its generation is listed as Blackwell IGP (N1x). The transistor count is listed as unknown, but the die size is recorded at 382 mm². The N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), uses no power connectors, and includes a single HDMI display output. It also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

The shading unit count differs dramatically. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, while the N1 20SM has 2,560. Texture mapping units also diverge sharply: 592 on the B300 versus 160 on the N1 20SM. Both parts have 24 raster output units, which is the only identical compute block count between them.

Tensor core counts differ as well. The B300 has 592 tensor cores, while the N1 20SM has 80. The N1 20SM includes 20 ray tracing cores, while the B300 lists no RT core count in the database. The B300 has a much larger memory subsystem: 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. This is a 15-fold difference in memory bandwidth.

The B300 uses a 16:1 FP16 ratio, meaning its half-precision throughput is far higher than its single-precision throughput. The N1 20SM uses a 1:1 FP16 ratio, so its half-precision and single-precision rates are identical. This reflects the B300's design for mixed-precision AI training workloads, where reduced-precision math dominates, versus the N1 20SM's more balanced compute profile.

Where Each One Wins

The B300 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate is 76.99 TFLOPS, while the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS. That is roughly 6.4 times higher single-precision performance. In FP16, the gap is far larger: the B300 reaches 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1) versus 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) for the N1 20SM. This makes the B300 approximately 102 times faster in half-precision workloads, a massive advantage for AI training and inference tasks that rely on FP16 math.

Texture fill rates follow the same pattern. The B300 processes 1,202.9 GTexel/s, while the N1 20SM manages 375.4 GTexel/s. The B300 is about 3.2 times faster in texture-heavy workloads. Pixel rates are closer: the B300 produces 48.77 GPixel/s, while the N1 20SM produces 56.30 GPixel/s. The N1 20SM actually holds a modest edge in pixel throughput, about 15% higher, despite having far fewer shading units. This suggests the N1 20SM's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz, versus 2032 MHz for the B300, helps close the pixel-rate gap.

The N1 20SM wins in power efficiency by design. Its TDP is listed as unknown, but it uses no external power connectors and is an integrated part. The B300 has a TDP of 1400 W and requires a suggested power supply of 1800 W. The N1 20SM is clearly intended for low-power environments, while the B300 demands server-class power delivery and cooling.

The N1 20SM also wins on display capability. It has one HDMI output, while the B300 has no display outputs at all. Any workload requiring a video signal must use the N1 20SM.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two parts:

• Chip: GB110 (B300) versus GB20B (N1 20SM)
• Architecture: Blackwell Ultra (B300) versus Blackwell 2.0 (N1 20SM)
• Generation: Server Blackwell (Bxx) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Transistors: 104,000 million (B300) versus unknown (N1 20SM)
• Die size: not listed (B300) versus 382 mm² (N1 20SM)
• Base clock: 1665 MHz (B300) versus 741 MHz (N1 20SM)
• Boost clock: 2032 MHz (B300) versus 2346 MHz (N1 20SM)
• Memory type: HBM3e (B300) versus LPDDR5X (N1 20SM)
• Memory size: 144 GB (B300) versus 128 GB (N1 20SM)
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit (B300) versus 256 bit (N1 20SM)
• Memory bandwidth: 4.10 TB/s (B300) versus 273.2 GB/s (N1 20SM)
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective (B300) versus 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective (N1 20SM)
• Shading units: 18,944 (B300) versus 2,560 (N1 20SM)
• TMUs: 592 (B300) versus 160 (N1 20SM)
• RT cores: not listed (B300) versus 20 (N1 20SM)
• Tensor cores: 592 (B300) versus 80 (N1 20SM)
• FP32: 76.99 TFLOPS (B300) versus 12.01 TFLOPS (N1 20SM)
• FP16: 1,231.8 TFLOPS 16:1 (B300) versus 12.01 TFLOPS 1:1 (N1 20SM)
• Pixel rate: 48.77 GPixel/s (B300) versus 56.30 GPixel/s (N1 20SM)
• Texture rate: 1,202.9 GTexel/s (B300) versus 375.4 GTexel/s (N1 20SM)
• TDP: 1400 W (B300) versus unknown (N1 20SM)
• Slot width: SXM Module (B300) versus IGP (N1 20SM)
• Power connectors: not listed (B300) versus None (N1 20SM)
• Suggested PSU: 1800 W (B300) versus not listed (N1 20SM)
• Display outputs: No outputs (B300) versus 1x HDMI (N1 20SM)
• Release date: 2025-09-10 (B300) versus 2026-05-31 (N1 20SM)
• DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan support: not listed (B300) versus N/A (N1 20SM)
• Predecessor: Server Hopper (B300) versus not listed (N1 20SM)
• Successor: Server Rubin (B300) versus not listed (N1 20SM)

The two parts share identical ROP counts (24), the same 5 nm process node, the same foundry (TSMC), and the same PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is roughly 6.4 times higher than the N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The B300 has 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth from 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus. The N1 20SM has 273.2 GB/s from 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The B300 provides about 15 times more bandwidth.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support display output?

A: The B300 has no display outputs. The N1 20SM includes one HDMI output.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 performance?

A: The B300 reaches 1,231.8 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 16:1 ratio. The N1 20SM reaches 12.01 TFLOPS in FP16 using a 1:1 ratio. The B300 is roughly 102 times faster in half-precision compute.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the B300 boosts to 2032 MHz. The N1 20SM has the higher boost clock despite having a much lower base clock of 741 MHz versus 1665 MHz for the B300.

Q: What is the release date for each product?

A: The B300 was released on 2025-09-10. The N1 20SM has a release date of 2026-05-31.

The Verdict

The database shows two very different products with no overlapping use cases. The NVIDIA B300 is a server-class accelerator built for maximum compute throughput. Its 18,944 shading units, 592 tensor cores, and 4.10 TB/s of memory bandwidth position it for AI training, scientific computing, and other data-center workloads. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested power supply confirm its placement in server racks with dedicated power and cooling infrastructure.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated processor with a far smaller footprint. Its 2,560 shading units, 80 tensor cores, and 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it suitable for embedded or edge applications where power draw must stay minimal. The single HDMI output and lack of power connectors reinforce its role as a low-power, display-capable part.

For any workload that depends on FP16 throughput, the B300 is the clear choice. Its 1,231.8 TFLOPS in half-precision dwarfs the N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS. For workloads that require a display output or minimal power delivery, the N1 20SM is the only option between the two.

The B300's higher FP32 rate of 76.99 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS gives it a significant edge in single-precision compute as well. The N1 20SM's only recorded win is in pixel rate, where it reaches 56.30 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300, but this is unlikely to matter in the server contexts where the B300 operates.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the database cannot confirm real-world performance beyond the specification sheet. Based on the recorded data, the B300 is the higher-performance part by every compute metric except pixel rate, while the N1 20SM offers integration, display output, and lower power requirements. Buyers should choose based on workload type: the B300 for dense compute, the N1 20SM for low-power, display-enabled systems.