NVIDIA GB10 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison scenario. The NVIDIA GB10 has two benchmark entries in the database, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark scores. This means the head-to-head comparison relies on the GB10's measured performance relative to its nearest rivals, and the Rubin GPU's theoretical specifications.

The GB10 delivers an average benchmark score of 117,393 across its two recorded tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 120,137, and in the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scores 114,648. These results place the GB10 in the 95th percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database, indicating strong overall standing. The Rubin GPU, by contrast, has a zero average benchmark score and sits at the 50th percentile, with no measured data available to confirm real-world performance.

When examining the GB10's position against its nearest rivals, the data shows a tight competitive field. The GB10 sits just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, which averages 117,088. This is a marginal lead, effectively a statistical tie. Against the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, the GB10 trails by 1.3%, with that rival averaging 118,976. The GB10 shows a stronger advantage over older server hardware, sitting 2.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (average 114,395) and 3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (average 113,944).

The Rubin GPU's lack of benchmark data means there are no direct score comparisons to report. The database lists zero wins for either item in the head-to-head section, confirming that no direct benchmark comparisons exist between these two specific products.

Where Each One Wins

The GB10 wins in measurable, verified performance. Its benchmark scores demonstrate real, recorded capability across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The 120,137 OpenCL score represents a 4.8% advantage over its own Vulkan score of 114,648, suggesting the GB10 favors compute-oriented OpenCL workloads over graphics-oriented Vulkan tasks. The GB10's 95th percentile ranking across all GPUs confirms that, based on available data, it outperforms the vast majority of tracked hardware.

The Rubin GPU wins in sheer theoretical specification. Its FP32 compute of 130.0 TFLOPS is 4.4 times the GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS. The FP16 output of 260.0 TFLOPS represents a 2:1 ratio to FP32, indicating a design optimized for mixed-precision workloads where the GB10 delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The Rubin GPU's memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is 80.9 times the GB10's 273.2 GB/s, a staggering difference driven by its HBM4 memory configuration versus the GB10's LPDDR5X.

The Rubin GPU also wins on raw resource counts. It ships with 28,672 shading units, which is 4.7 times the GB10's 6,144. The texture unit count of 896 is 2.3 times the GB10's 384. Tensor core counts differ as well: the Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores versus the GB10's 384, a 2.3x advantage. The Rubin GPU's texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is 2.2 times the GB10's 928.5 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is 4.4 times the GB10's 29.71 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the Rubin GPU?

A: The database contains no benchmark scores for the Rubin GPU. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no entry in the percentile rankings beyond the 50th percentile default.

Q: What is the GB10's best benchmark result?

A: The GB10 scores 120,137 in Geekbench OpenCL and 114,648 in Geekbench Vulkan, giving it an average of 117,393.

Q: How does the GB10 compare to its closest rival?

A: The GB10 is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, with that rival averaging 117,088. The gap is minimal.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The GB10 has a TDP of 140 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2,300 W and a suggested PSU of 2,700 W.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The GB10 uses a GB20B chip built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm². The Rubin GPU uses a GR100 chip on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 1,456 mm² and 336,000 million transistors. The transistor density for the GB10 is not recorded, while the Rubin GPU lists 230.8M transistors per mm².

Clock speeds show a notable divergence. The GB10 has a base clock of 1,665 MHz and a boost clock of 2,418 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a much lower base clock of 700 MHz but a boost clock of 2,267 MHz, which is 151 MHz lower than the GB10's boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the GB10 runs at 1,067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while the Rubin GPU runs at 2,695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16,384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s. The bus width difference is 64 times, and the bandwidth difference is approximately 81 times.

The GB10 has 48 ROPs, while the Rubin GPU has 24 ROPs. This gives the GB10 a pixel rate of 116.1 GPixel/s versus the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s, a 2.1x advantage for the GB10. The GB10 also has 48 RT cores, while the Rubin GPU's RT core count is not recorded. Both have 384 and 896 tensor cores respectively, and 384 and 896 TMUs respectively.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The GB10 is rated at 140 W TDP with no power connectors required and a 300 W suggested PSU, fitting in an IGP slot width. The Rubin GPU is rated at 2,300 W TDP with a 2,700 W suggested PSU and uses an SXM Module slot width. The GB10 has one HDMI display output, while the Rubin GPU has no display outputs. The GB10 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The GB10 is based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The Rubin GPU is based on the Rubin architecture, part of the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The GB10's predecessor is listed as Server Hopper, and its successor is Server Rubin, which places the Rubin GPU as the next-generation product in the same lineage.

The GB10 ships with 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 384 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU ships with 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no recorded RT core count, and 896 tensor cores. The shading unit advantage for the Rubin GPU is 4.7 times, while the GB10 holds a 2 times advantage in ROP count.

FP16 compute reveals a fundamental architectural difference. The GB10 delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 29.71 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU delivers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, with 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 versus 130.0 TFLOPS FP32. This indicates the Rubin GPU's architecture is designed for workloads that benefit from doubled half-precision throughput.

The GB10 has a release date of 2025-10-14, while the Rubin GPU has a release date of 2025-12-31. Both are listed as Active in production status. The GB10 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the Rubin GPU has no recorded launch MSRP. Both list DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A, indicating server-focused designs without consumer graphics API support.

The GB10 measures 150 mm in length, 51 mm in height, and 150 mm in width. The Rubin GPU has no recorded physical dimensions. The GB10's dimensions correspond to a compact IGP form factor, while the Rubin GPU's SXM Module form factor is designed for different mounting requirements.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between verified performance and theoretical capability. The GB10 is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results, delivering an average score of 117,393 and ranking in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its measured performance places it in a close competitive cluster with the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (0.3% ahead), the Radeon PRO W7700 (1.3% behind), the Tesla V100 SXM2 (2.6% ahead), and the RTX A5500 Mobile (3% ahead). For users who require confirmed, tested performance, the GB10 is the only option with data to support a purchasing decision.

The Rubin GPU offers dramatically higher theoretical specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 130.0 TFLOPS, memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s, and 288 GB of HBM4 memory position it as a far more capable compute platform on paper. The 4.4 times FP32 advantage and 80.9 times memory bandwidth advantage over the GB10 indicate that, if the specifications translate to real-world performance, the Rubin GPU would be in a different performance class entirely.

The power requirements reinforce this distinction. The GB10's 140 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it suitable for compact, power-constrained environments. The Rubin GPU's 2,300 W TDP and 2,700 W suggested PSU require dedicated infrastructure and substantial cooling. The GB10's integrated graphics form factor with a single HDMI output suggests a workstation or edge deployment, while the Rubin GPU's SXM Module with no display outputs is designed for data center compute racks.

The release dates place the Rubin GPU roughly two and a half months after the GB10. The GB10's launch MSRP of 3,999 USD provides a reference point, while the Rubin GPU has no recorded pricing. The lack of benchmark data for the Rubin GPU means its actual performance remains unverified in the database.

For users needing a GPU with confirmed benchmark results, a compact form factor, and moderate power requirements, the GB10 is the appropriate choice. Its 95th percentile ranking and competitive position against established workstation GPUs make it a reliable performer. For users prioritizing maximum theoretical compute capability, massive memory bandwidth, and the latest architecture, the Rubin GPU presents the higher ceiling, but the absence of measured data means its real-world performance cannot be confirmed from the database. The verdict from the recorded data is that the GB10 is the verified performer, while the Rubin GPU is an unproven specification sheet.