AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD FirePro W7100 and the NVIDIA P106-100, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA P106-100 wins both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P106-100 scores 35,951 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182, a delta of 32.7% in NVIDIA's favor. That is the largest margin in any comparison between these two cards, and it is a substantial one. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P106-100 again takes the lead with 32,897 against 27,529, a 16.3% advantage.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling. A 32.7% gap in compute workloads suggests the P106-100's higher FP32 throughput is doing real work. The FirePro W7100 is not without its own strengths, but in these two synthetic workloads, it trails by double digits in both cases. The Vulkan gap is narrower, which indicates the FirePro W7100 is comparatively closer in graphics-oriented API performance than in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W7100 holds a 71st percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the P106-100 sits at the 68th percentile. That is a curious inversion: the FirePro W7100 ranks higher overall despite losing both head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in average benchmark scores. The FirePro W7100's average is 25,856, while the P106-100's is 23,249. The FirePro W7100's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D700 at 25,842 (0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25,891 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25,740 (0.5%), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 at 25,726 (0.5%). The P106-100's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23,276 (-0.1%), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 at 23,315 (-0.3%).

The average score difference of 2,607 points (about 11.2%) between the two cards is driven by the FirePro W7100 having a broader benchmark profile, or at least one that averages higher. But the head-to-head data is what it is: the P106-100 wins both direct comparisons, and the FirePro W7100 loses both. The FirePro W7100's higher percentile ranking does not translate into a win in these specific tests, which suggests its average is buoyed by workloads not captured in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload type. The NVIDIA P106-100 wins in both compute-oriented and graphics-API tests recorded. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 35,951 is the standout result, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,897 is also ahead. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the P106-100 is the clear choice based on the 32.7% margin. If the workload is Vulkan rendering, the P106-100 still wins, though the 16.3% margin is smaller.

The AMD FirePro W7100 does not have a single benchmark win in the head-to-head data. However, its average benchmark score of 25,856 is higher than the P106-100's 23,249, and its 71st percentile ranking beats the P106-100's 68th. This suggests the FirePro W7100 performs better across the broader database of tests, even if it loses the two specific tests shared with the P106-100. For users who care about overall consistency across many workloads, the FirePro W7100's profile is stronger. For users who specifically need OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the P106-100 is the one that delivers.

The FirePro W7100's 8 GB of memory is another point in its favor for memory-heavy tasks. The P106-100 has 6 GB. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those workloads are off the table for both. The FirePro W7100 also has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the P106-100 has no display outputs at all. That makes the P106-100 unsuitable for any task requiring a monitor connection, which is a hard constraint for many users.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and use different process nodes. The AMD FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA P106-100 uses the GP106 chip built on Pascal architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 16 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 16 nm. The FirePro W7100 has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The P106-100 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser Pascal chip is a direct result of the more advanced process.

Core counts differ substantially. The FirePro W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The P106-100 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the P106-100 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 82.03 GPixel/s and 136.7 GTexel/s versus 29.44 GPixel/s and 103.0 GTexel/s for the FirePro W7100. The clock speed difference explains much of this. The P106-100 has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1709 MHz, while the FirePro W7100's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The P106-100's higher clocks, combined with its 48 ROPs, give it a massive pixel rate advantage.

FP32 performance also favors the P106-100. It delivers 4.375 TFLOPS against the FirePro W7100's 3.297 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is a stark contrast: the FirePro W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the P106-100 delivers 68.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. The P106-100 is clearly not designed for FP16 work, while the FirePro W7100 treats it as a first-class citizen.

Memory subsystems differ as well. The FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P106-100 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The P106-100 has less memory but higher bandwidth, a trade-off that favors bandwidth-heavy workloads. The FirePro W7100's memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the P106-100's is 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The P106-100's memory runs much faster.

The bus interface differs notably. The FirePro W7100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the P106-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x16. That is a significant interface limitation for the P106-100, potentially bottlenecking data transfers on modern systems. The FirePro W7100 also has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2), while the P106-100 has none, reflecting its mining-oriented design. API support is similar: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro W7100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 while the P106-100 supports Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W7100's DirectX level is 12_0, while the P106-100's is 12_1. Power draw is lower on the P106-100 at 120 W versus 150 W for the FirePro W7100. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the P106-100 and 450 W for the FirePro W7100. Physical dimensions are similar in length: 250 mm (9.8 inches) for the P106-100 and 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the FirePro W7100. The FirePro W7100 is single-slot, the P106-100 is dual-slot. Both use a single 6-pin power connector.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 35,951 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W7100 scores 24,182. That is a 32.7% advantage for the P106-100.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 scores 32,897 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD FirePro W7100 scores 27,529. The P106-100 leads by 16.3%.

Q: Does the FirePro W7100 have any advantage at all?

A: Yes. Its average benchmark score is 25,856 versus 23,249 for the P106-100, and it ranks in the 71st percentile of all GPUs compared to the P106-100's 68th. It also has 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB and supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the P106-100 is limited to PCIe 1.0 x16.

Q: Can the P106-100 be used with a monitor?

A: No. The P106-100 has no display outputs. The FirePro W7100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has better FP16 performance?

A: The FirePro W7100 delivers 3.297 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio. The P106-100 delivers only 68.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, so it is effectively unsuitable for FP16 workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The FirePro W7100 has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the FirePro W7100 and 16 nm for the P106-100. Transistor count is 5,000 million versus 4,400 million, and die size is 366 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 13.7 million per mm² for the FirePro W7100 and 22.0 million per mm² for the P106-100. The P106-100 has recorded base and boost clocks of 1506 MHz and 1709 MHz, while the FirePro W7100 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the FirePro W7100 and 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the P106-100.

Memory capacity is 8 GB for the FirePro W7100 and 6 GB for the P106-100. Bus width is 256-bit versus 192-bit. Memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s. Shading units are 1,792 versus 1,280. TMUs are 112 versus 80. ROPs are 32 versus 48. Pixel rate is 29.44 GPixel/s versus 82.03 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 103.0 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.297 TFLOPS versus 4.375 TFLOPS. FP16 is 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64). TDP is 150 W versus 120 W. The FirePro W7100 is single-slot, the P106-100 is dual-slot. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W7100 and PCIe 1.0 x16 for the P106-100. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus none. The FirePro W7100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the P106-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W7100 has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches); the P106-100's height is not recorded. Length is 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the FirePro W7100 and 250 mm (9.8 inches) for the P106-100. Suggested PSU is 450 W versus 300 W. The FirePro W7100 was released in 2014, the P106-100 in 2017. Both use a single 6-pin power connector.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for users who need compute performance: the NVIDIA P106-100 is the stronger card in the two recorded benchmark comparisons. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 32.7% and Geekbench Vulkan by 16.3%. Its higher FP32 throughput, faster memory, and dramatically higher pixel and texture rates give it a clear edge in raw performance. However, the P106-100 has no display outputs, which makes it unsuitable for any workstation or desktop use involving a monitor. It is a compute-only or mining-oriented card, and its PCIe 1.0 x16 interface is a potential bottleneck on modern motherboards.

The AMD FirePro W7100 is the more balanced card for general workstation use. It has 8 GB of memory, four DisplayPort outputs, PCIe 3.0 x16 support, and a higher overall benchmark average of 25,856. Its 71st percentile ranking is above the P106-100's 68th. It loses the head-to-head tests, but it wins the broader comparison across the database. For users who need display connectivity, memory capacity, or a card that slots into a professional workstation environment, the FirePro W7100 is the safer pick. For users who only need compute throughput and can work around the lack of display outputs, the P106-100 is the faster option in the specific tests recorded.

The choice comes down to workload constraints. If the task is OpenCL or Vulkan compute and display output is handled by another GPU, the P106-100 is the data-backed winner. If the task requires a self-contained card with display outputs, 8 GB of memory, and consistent performance across a wide range of workloads, the FirePro W7100's higher average score and percentile ranking make it the better fit. Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability and platform compatibility should be verified before purchase. The recorded data does not include a price for either card, so no cost comparison is possible from the database.