AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 and NVIDIA P102-100 represent two divergent interpretations of GPU purpose: one is an integrated mobile graphics solution aimed at professional Mac workflows, the other a mining-focused accelerator with no display outputs. The data shows both cards land at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, yet their benchmark profiles diverge sharply depending on the API tested.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their head-to-head benchmark results exactly one win apiece. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53,757 against the NVIDIA P102-100’s 49,602, giving AMD an 8.4% advantage. This is a meaningful gap in compute workloads that favor OpenCL, where the Vega 48’s architecture can leverage its high FP32 throughput and unified memory design. The AMD card also maintains a higher average benchmark score overall at 60,140 versus 58,528 for the P102-100, a difference of roughly 2.8% based on the nearestRivals deltaPct figures.

However, the NVIDIA P102-100 strikes back decisively in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, NVIDIA scores 67,454 while AMD manages 57,653, a 14.5% lead for the P102-100. This is the largest performance delta between the two cards in any tested workload. The Vulkan result is particularly striking because the P102-100’s average score is dragged down by its relatively weak OpenCL showing, yet its Vulkan performance is substantially higher than the Vega 48’s best result in any test. In fact, the P102-100’s Vulkan score of 67,454 exceeds the Vega 48’s top benchmark (its Metal score of 69,010 comes closest, but Metal is not tested on the NVIDIA card).

When comparing to their nearest rivals, both cards sit in a tight cluster. The Vega 48 trails the Intel Arc Pro A60 by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 by 0.3%, while leading the AMD Radeon PRO V710 by 2.5% and the P102-100 by 2.8%. The P102-100, conversely, trails the Radeon PRO V710 by 0.2%, leads the Radeon RX 6950 XT by 0.2%, the Intel Arc A570M by 0.5%, and the Radeon RX 5600 OEM by 0.8%. Neither card dominates its peer group; the data suggests both are mid-pack performers relative to the broader GPU landscape.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Vega 48 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the P102-100 employs NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture on TSMC’s 16 nm node. The Vega 48 integrates 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The P102-100 packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, slightly denser at 25.1 million per mm² but with fewer total transistors.

Compute resources differ notably. The Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The P102-100 counters with 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Vega 48’s GCN design achieves higher FP16 throughput at 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the P102-100’s 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio) — a massive gap in half-precision compute. In FP32, the P102-100 leads with 10.77 TFLOPS against the Vega 48’s 7.373 TFLOPS, a 46% advantage. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the P102-100 hits 134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s, while the Vega 48 manages 76.80 GPixel/s and 230.4 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s bandwidth at an effective 1572 Mbps. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth at 11 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA card has higher raw bandwidth despite less capacity, but the HBM2 setup on AMD provides a wider bus and potentially different latency characteristics. Clock speeds are only specified for the P102-100: base 1582 MHz and boost 1683 MHz. The Vega 48’s clocks are not listed in the data.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the choice between these two cards depends entirely on the workload’s API and compute requirements. For OpenCL-heavy tasks, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is the clear winner with an 8.4% advantage. For Vulkan-based workloads, the NVIDIA P102-100 wins by 14.5%. The overall average benchmark score favors AMD (60,140 vs 58,528), but this average includes the Vega 48’s Metal score of 69,010, which has no direct counterpart on the NVIDIA card.

The P102-100’s lack of display outputs and PCIe 1.0 x4 interface (versus the Vega 48’s PCIe 3.0 x16) further cements its role as a compute-only device. The Vega 48’s “IGP” slot width and portable-device-dependent outputs indicate it is designed for integration into laptops or all-in-one systems, not standalone use. The P102-100 is a dual-slot card with two 8-pin power connectors and a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply; the Vega 48 has no TDP listed and uses no external power connectors.

Users needing a display output, half-precision compute (FP16), or OpenCL performance should select the AMD card. Users prioritizing Vulkan, raw FP32 throughput, or higher pixel/texture rates should select the NVIDIA card. The data does not support a universal recommendation; the winner is workload-dependent.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 | NVIDIA P102-100 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.3M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1582 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1683 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 440.3 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 786 MHz / 1572 Mbps effective | 1376 MHz / 11 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 3200 |

| TMUs | 192 | 200 |

| ROPs | 64 | 80 |

| FP32 | 7.373 TFLOPS | 10.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Pixel Rate | 76.80 GPixel/s | 134.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 230.4 GTexel/s | 336.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | Not listed | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| Vulkan API | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2019-03-18 | 2018-02-11 |

| Length | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 across benchmarks, while the NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528. This gives AMD a 2.8% edge based on the nearestRivals deltaPct data.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 scores 67,454 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 57,653 for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, making NVIDIA 14.5% faster in that specific test.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the NVIDIA P102-100 output video to a display?

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent.”

Q: Which card offers higher FP16 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 delivers 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), vastly exceeding the NVIDIA P102-100’s 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, while the NVIDIA P102-100 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die.