AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA P106-100 across every shared benchmark test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P106-100 scores 35,951 points against the FirePro W7000's 17,808 points. This represents a delta of 101.9%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than double the compute throughput in this specific workload. The margin is substantial enough to place the two cards in entirely different performance tiers for OpenCL-based applications.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The P106-100 posts 32,897 points, while the FirePro W7000 manages 22,001 points. The 49.5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part confirms that its architectural advantages translate consistently across different graphics APIs. Neither benchmark shows a single instance where the AMD card takes the lead, with the head-to-head tally standing at 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the P106-100 holds an average score of 23,249 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W7000's average sits at 19,905, which corresponds to the 65th percentile. The 3,344-point gap in average scores underscores that the NVIDIA card outperforms the AMD card not just in isolated tests, but across the entire benchmark suite.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes these results. The P106-100's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, which scores 23,250, a negligible 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M trails by 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X also sits 0.1% behind. This clustering suggests the P106-100 performs at a level consistent with mid-range GPUs from a later generation, despite its mining-focused origins.

For the FirePro W7000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19,885, a 0.1% delta in favor of the AMD card. The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT sits 0.7% ahead, the AMD FirePro D300 is 1.4% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 leads by 1.5%. These tight margins indicate the W7000 is squarely positioned within its performance class, but that class is notably below the P106-100's standing.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA P106-100 in OpenCL workloads?

A: The P106-100 scores 35,951 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 101.9% higher than the FirePro W7000's 17,808. This means the NVIDIA card delivers over twice the OpenCL performance of the AMD card.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W7000 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: In the head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the FirePro W7000 has zero wins. The NVIDIA P106-100 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The P106-100 sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W7000 ranks at the 65th percentile. This indicates both cards are above the median, but the NVIDIA part occupies a higher overall standing.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance gap compare to the OpenCL gap?

A: The Vulkan gap is narrower but still decisive. The P106-100 leads by 49.5% in Vulkan (32,897 vs 22,001), whereas the OpenCL lead is 101.9% (35,951 vs 17,808). The NVIDIA advantage is more pronounced in OpenCL.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The P106-100 records an average benchmark score of 23,249. The FirePro W7000 averages 19,905. The difference of 3,344 points places the NVIDIA card in a higher performance bracket overall.

Q: Which card has a closer set of rivals in the database?

A: The FirePro W7000's nearest rivals are within a 1.5% delta range, including the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 0.1% behind. The P106-100's nearest rivals cluster within 0.3%, with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 matching its score exactly.

Architecture Differences

The two cards stem from fundamentally different architectural eras. The NVIDIA P106-100 is built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 16 nm process node. The chip, designated GP106, contains 4,400 million transistors on a die size of 200 mm². This yields a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the mature 16 nm manufacturing process.

The AMD FirePro W7000 employs the GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Pitcairn chip, on TSMC's older 28 nm node. The die measures 212 mm² and houses 2,800 million transistors. The transistor density works out to 13.2 million per square millimeter. The comparison is instructive: the NVIDIA chip packs 57% more transistors into a slightly smaller die, which directly contributes to its higher compute throughput.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The P106-100 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but the memory clock runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) compared to the P106-100's 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The result is that the NVIDIA card achieves higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus: 192.2 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s.

Both cards share identical shading unit counts at 1,280 and identical texture mapping unit counts at 80. The raster operation partitions differ, with the P106-100 carrying 48 ROPs versus the FirePro W7000's 32 ROPs. This affects pixel throughput: the P106-100 achieves 82.03 GPixel/s, while the W7000 manages 30.40 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates also diverge sharply, with 136.7 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part against 76.00 GTexel/s for the AMD part.

The FP32 compute figures underscore the performance gap. The P106-100 delivers 4.375 TFLOPS, while the W7000 produces 2.432 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also supports FP16 at 68.36 GFLOPS, though at a 1:64 ratio relative to FP32, indicating limited half-precision utility. The AMD card has no recorded FP16 capability. API support shows the P106-100 with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the W7000 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The process node differs: 16 nm for the P106-100 versus 28 nm for the W7000. Transistor counts are 4,400 million against 2,800 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 212 mm². Clock speeds show the P106-100 with a base of 1506 MHz and a boost of 1709 MHz, while the W7000 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database.

Memory size favors the NVIDIA card at 6 GB versus 4 GB. The bus width favors the AMD card at 256 bit versus 192 bit, but the effective memory clock of 2002 MHz (8 Gbps) on the P106-100 outstrips the W7000's 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps). Bandwidth consequently favors NVIDIA at 192.2 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. The ROP count is 48 for the P106-100 and 32 for the W7000.

Power characteristics differ notably. The P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the W7000 draws 150 W and recommends a 450 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot, while the AMD card fits in a single slot. Both use a single 6-pin power connector. The bus interface differs: the P106-100 runs PCIe 1.0 x16, while the W7000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs present a stark contrast. The P106-100 has no display outputs at all, reflecting its mining-oriented design. The W7000 provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Physical dimensions are similar, with the NVIDIA card at 250 mm (9.8 inches) and the AMD card at 242 mm (9.5 inches). The W7000 also lists a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the P106-100 has no recorded height. Release dates place the W7000 in June 2012 and the P106-100 in June 2017, a five-year gap that explains most of the architectural differences.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner for compute performance: the NVIDIA P106-100. Its 101.9% lead in OpenCL and 49.5% lead in Vulkan are decisive margins that no other comparison in the database contradicts. The higher average benchmark score, better percentile ranking, and superior memory bandwidth all reinforce this conclusion.

However, the choice is not purely about raw performance. The FirePro W7000 offers four DisplayPort outputs, which the P106-100 completely lacks. Any workload requiring video output cannot use the NVIDIA card at all. The W7000 is also single-slot, which may fit in denser chassis configurations.

For compute-heavy tasks where display output is not needed, the P106-100 is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements. For workstation use cases that require multi-monitor output and where the lower compute performance is acceptable, the FirePro W7000 remains viable. The W7000's lower transistor density and older architecture suggest it is less efficient per square millimeter, though its 150 W TDP is higher than the P106-100's 120 W.

The percentile data places both cards above the median GPU, so neither is a low-end part. The P106-100's 68th percentile and the W7000's 65th percentile indicate both occupy respectable positions in the overall GPU landscape. The nearest rival data shows the W7000 competing with workstation-class parts like the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD FirePro D300, while the P106-100 trades blows with later-generation parts like the AMD Radeon RX 6600M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA P106-100 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and pixel fill rates. The 192.2 GB/s bandwidth and 82.03 GPixel/s pixel rate are substantially higher than the W7000's figures. For applications that stress FP32 compute or texture throughput, the P106-100 holds a commanding lead.

The FirePro W7000's advantages are not captured in benchmark scores but in its feature set. The four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it the only choice for multi-display professional environments. Its single-slot design and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface are also practical benefits for certain system configurations. The lower 4 GB memory capacity may suffice for less demanding workloads, and its 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while lower, is still adequate for many tasks.

Use-case splitting follows directly from these observations. The P106-100 is suited for headless compute nodes, mining operations, or rendering farms where display output is irrelevant. The W7000 fits professional workstations requiring multiple monitors, CAD workstations, or any environment where the inability to output video would be disqualifying.

In terms of efficiency, the P106-100 delivers more performance per watt, with 4.375 TFLOPS at 120 W compared to the W7000's 2.432 TFLOPS at 150 W. The P106-100 also achieves its performance with a smaller die and fewer transistors per square millimeter, indicating a more efficient design overall. The W7000 compensates with a wider memory bus, but the slower memory clock negates that advantage.

For users prioritizing raw compute and having no display requirements, the P106-100 is the clear pick. For users needing professional display outputs and accepting lower performance, the W7000 serves its niche. The five-year release gap between the two cards explains much of the performance difference, with the P106-100 benefiting from two generations of architectural advancement.