Graphcore logo

Graphcore Bow IPU vs Graphcore C600

The Bow IPU delivers 25% more FP16 throughput than the C600 (350 vs 280 TFLOPS dense).

Bow IPU: Colossus MK2, 2022 C600: Colossus MK2, 2022
FP16 dense lead
+25%
Bow IPU: 350 vs 280 TFLOPS

Specifications

Graphcore logo
Bow IPU
Graphcore logo
C600
Architecture
Colossus MK2Colossus MK2
Launch Year
20222022
Form Factor
—PCIe
Memory
——
Memory Bandwidth
——
TDP
—185 W
Process Node
——

Performance (TFLOPS)

Graphcore logo
Bow IPU
Graphcore logo
C600
FP64
No verified data available No verified data available
FP32
87 TFLOPS No verified data available
TF32
No verified data available No verified data available
BF16
No verified data available No verified data available
FP16
350 TFLOPS 280 TFLOPS
FP8
No verified data available560 TFLOPS
FP6
No verified data available No verified data available
FP4
No verified data available No verified data available
INT8
No verified data available No verified data available

FLOPS by Precision

What actually differs

Both GPUs launched in 2022: the Bow IPU on Colossus MK2 and the C600 on Colossus MK2.

Dense throughput for the Bow IPU against the C600: FP16 350 vs 280 TFLOPS. Sparse figures, where the vendor publishes them, appear under each dense number in the performance table.

For LLM training and inference, weight the FP8 and FP16 rows and memory capacity most heavily. For scientific and HPC workloads, the FP64 row is the one to read.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Bow IPU faster than the C600?

At FP16 precision the Bow IPU reaches 350 TFLOPS dense against 280 TFLOPS for the C600. The performance table on this page lists every published precision for both GPUs.

Get Comparison Updates

New GPUs added weekly. Be the first to see how they compare.

© 2026 Flopper.io - Compare the GPUs Powering AI