AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA P102-100 is the stronger GPU in raw benchmark performance, winning both recorded head-to-head tests. It leads by 18.7% in Geekbench OpenCL and by a decisive 70.3% in Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT does not win any of the comparative benchmarks, making the NVIDIA part the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration.

However, the AMD card is not without its own rationale. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT carries 8 GB of memory versus the NVIDIA’s 5 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the smaller frame buffer. It also operates at a much lower power draw, 125 W versus 250 W, and requires no external power connectors, making it a more flexible option for systems with limited power delivery. The AMD part also supports faster half-precision compute, with 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 versus the NVIDIA’s 168.3 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio that shows a clear architectural trade-off.

For buyers who prioritize maximum single-precision throughput and Vulkan performance, the NVIDIA P102-100 is the data-driven winner. For those who need more memory, lower power consumption, and stronger FP16 capability, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT offers a compelling alternative, even if its raw benchmark scores are lower. Neither card has display outputs, so both are strictly compute or mining accelerators.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The NVIDIA P102-100 uses the GP102 chip built on Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors onto a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a much smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ substantially. The NVIDIA GPU has 3,200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. The AMD GPU has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA part has more than double the shading units and more than double the ROPs, which directly explains its higher pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s, and its higher texture rate of 336.6 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has nearly twice the memory bandwidth, but the AMD card has 60% more capacity. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed at 1376 MHz with 11 Gbps effective, while the AMD memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds show an interesting split. The NVIDIA base clock is 1582 MHz with a boost of 1683 MHz. The AMD base clock is lower at 1187 MHz, but its boost clock reaches 1757 MHz, which is higher than the NVIDIA boost. This suggests the AMD card has a wider dynamic range, but the NVIDIA card sustains higher baseline performance.

The power profiles are dramatically different. The NVIDIA P102-100 is rated at 250 W TDP, uses dual-slot cooling, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W power supply. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is rated at 125 W TDP, listed as an IGP (integrated GPU platform) form factor, requires no power connectors, and suggests only a 300 W power supply. The bus interfaces also differ: the NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4, while the AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, a significant difference in host connectivity.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The NVIDIA card supports FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, which is severely limited, while the AMD card supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision at twice the rate of FP32.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the NVIDIA P102-100 across both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 49,602 against the AMD’s 41,772, a delta of 18.7% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is a meaningful gap, indicating that OpenCL workloads that scale with shading units and memory bandwidth will run noticeably faster on the Pascal-based card.

The Vulkan result is far more lopsided. The NVIDIA P102-100 scores 67,454, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 39,601. That is a 70.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, nearly three-quarters higher. Vulkan performance on the AMD RDNA 1.0 architecture appears to be a significant weakness in this pairing, and the data suggests that any Vulkan-based workload should strongly favor the NVIDIA card.

It is worth remembering the AMD card has a third benchmark, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 54,779. This test is not available for the NVIDIA card, so it cannot be used for a direct comparison. However, the AMD’s Metal score is higher than its OpenCL score and its Vulkan score, indicating that Apple’s Metal API is a relative strength for this GPU. For macOS or Metal-specific environments, the AMD card has a recorded performance profile that the NVIDIA card simply cannot match, since the NVIDIA has no Metal benchmark in the database.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average score of 58,528 across its two benchmarks, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has an average score of 45,384 across three benchmarks, placing it in the 84th percentile. The percentile difference is modest, but the raw average score difference is about 29%.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The NVIDIA P102-100 sits within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, 0.5% of the Intel Arc A570M, 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, and 0.2% below the AMD Radeon PRO V710. This places it in a solid mid-to-high tier of performance. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile, 0.5% below the Intel Arc A730M, and 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. The competitor set is different, but the overall positioning is comparable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58,528, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has an average of 45,384. The NVIDIA card also sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs versus the AMD’s 84th percentile.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 67,454 against the AMD’s 39,601, a 70.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark where it wins?

A: The database records zero wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT in head-to-head tests against the NVIDIA P102-100. However, the AMD card has a Geekbench Metal score of 54,779, which is not a test available for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 is rated at 250 W TDP, uses dual-slot cooling, needs two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W power supply. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is rated at 125 W TDP, has no power connectors, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: What is the FP16 compute difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT delivers 10.80 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA P102-100 delivers 168.3 GFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, making the AMD card dramatically faster in half-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA P102-100 wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its 18.7% OpenCL advantage and 70.3% Vulkan advantage make it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, especially in Vulkan-based applications. Its higher shading unit count, 3,200 versus 1,536, and its much higher memory bandwidth, 440.3 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s, are the structural reasons for this dominance. The card also delivers more than double the FP32 throughput at 10.77 TFLOPS versus 5.398 TFLOPS, and more than double the pixel fill rate at 134.6 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s. For workloads that are limited by single-precision math or memory throughput, the NVIDIA part is the stronger option.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT wins in several qualitative categories that are not captured by the head-to-head benchmarks. It has 8 GB of memory versus 5 GB, which is a 60% capacity advantage. For large datasets, neural network weights, or render targets that exceed 5 GB, the AMD card is the only viable option between the two. Its FP16 performance is also categorically superior: 10.80 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS. In the database, the NVIDIA card’s FP16 is listed at a 1:64 ratio, meaning it is effectively crippled for half-precision work, while the AMD card runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, making it suitable for mixed-precision compute. The AMD card also draws half the power, 125 W versus 250 W, and requires no external power connectors, which makes it compatible with far more systems, including those with limited PSU capacity. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is also newer and faster than the NVIDIA’s PCIe 1.0 x4, which could matter for host-side data transfer.

The release dates also differ. The NVIDIA P102-100 launched in February 2018, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT launched in August 2020. Both are end-of-life products, but the AMD card is over two years newer in the database’s timeline.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA P102-100 | AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1582 MHz | 1187 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 1757 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1376 MHz, 11 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 320 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3200 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 200 | 96 |

| ROPs | 80 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 134.6 GPixel/s | 56.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.6 GTexel/s | 168.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.77 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2020-08-03 |

The specification table shows two GPUs designed for different niches. The NVIDIA P102-100 is a high-power, high-throughput compute card with a large die and massive memory bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is a low-power, memory-capable card with modern FP16 support and a smaller physical footprint. Both lack display outputs, so neither can serve as a traditional graphics card. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload prioritizes raw FP32/Vulkan throughput or memory capacity/power efficiency.