Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B · Chip comparison

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B — B200 vs TPU7x

Head-to-head AI inference benchmark comparison of B200 (NVIDIA Blackwell) and TPU7x (Google Ironwood) on Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B. Latency, throughput, and cost across LLM workloads. Use the chart controls below to switch sequences, precisions, and metrics — same interactions as the main inference chart.

AgentX replays real coding-agent sessions rather than fixed-length prompts, so context grows turn over turn and most of each request is served from cache instead of being recomputed. That turns the comparison into a systems question: KV transfer between nodes, prefix-aware routing, and cache capacity all move the curve alongside raw chip throughput. Fixed-sequence workloads stay the clean baseline for kernel and silicon performance, so the two scenarios answer different questions about the same hardware. Learn more about AgentX →

At 148 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B, TPU7x delivers 23,592 tok/s/chip at $0.012 per million tokens; B200 hasn't been benchmarked at this target.

TPU7x hits 14,313 tok/s/chip for $0.020 per million tokens at 226 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B. No B200 data at this operating point.

TPU7x: 8,678 tok/s/chip, $0.033 per million tokens at 304 tok/s/user on Qwen 3.8 Flash Next 176B-A6B. B200 is unmeasured here. (Numbers reflect the default agentic-traces · fp8 selection for this URL — table and chart below update if you change sequence, precision, or model in the controls.)

View performance per dollar →

Interpolated from real benchmark data. Edit target interactivity values below to compare at different operating points.

Metric
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Interactivity (tok/s/user)
Throughput (tok/s/chip)
B200—TPU7x23,592
B200—TPU7x14,313
B200—TPU7x8,678
Cost ($/M tok)
B200—TPU7x$0.012
B200—TPU7x$0.020
B200—TPU7x$0.033
tok/s/MW
B200—TPU7x19,546,353
B200—TPU7x11,858,146
B200—TPU7x7,189,499
Concurrency
B200—TPU7x~15
B200—TPU7x~10
B200—TPU7x~6