AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and NVIDIA P102-100 are two end-of-life graphics cards separated by a generation of architecture and a complete divergence in design philosophy, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them in a dead heat. The AMD card, built on the 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture, targets professional Mac workflows with a dual-slot Apple MPX form factor, while the NVIDIA card, a 16 nm Pascal mining part, is a bare-bones accelerator with no display outputs. The data shows the W5500X holds a razor-thin 0.1% lead in average benchmark score (57661 vs. 57601), making the choice between them entirely dependent on the use case rather than raw performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a statistical tie, but the intended use cases could not be more different. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is the card to pick if you need a functional display adapter with professional software support. It posts a Geekbench Metal score of 57661, placing it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, and it comes with two HDMI 2.0b outputs, making it usable in a standard workstation setup. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for modern creative workloads.

The NVIDIA P102-100, conversely, is a mining-focused card with zero display outputs. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 49602 and Vulkan score of 65600 show it has computational muscle, but without any video output, it cannot function as a primary display adapter. Its 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a wider 320-bit bus delivers 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double that of the AMD card. If the workload is purely compute-oriented and does not require a display, the P102-100 offers superior memory throughput. For anyone building a normal workstation, the W5500X is the only viable option; for a dedicated compute or mining rig, the P102-100's bandwidth advantage makes it the more logical choice.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split is defined by the benchmark type and the underlying hardware. In the only directly comparable metric from the fact pack, the AMD W5500X achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 57661, which is 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA card's average score of 57601. This suggests that in Metal-optimized applications—typically found in macOS ecosystems—the AMD card holds a marginal edge.

The NVIDIA P102-100, however, demonstrates its strengths in other API tests. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 65600 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score of 49602, indicating the Pascal architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently. The card's raw compute specifications support this: it offers 10.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 336.6 GTexel/s, both roughly double the W5500X's 5.398 TFLOPS and 168.7 GTexel/s. The P102-100's pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s also dwarfs the W5500X's 56.22 GPixel/s. Where the AMD card wins is in FP16 compute, delivering 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the NVIDIA card's 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64), making the W5500X vastly superior for half-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process node, packing 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on TSMC's 16 nm node, with 11,800 million transistors across a substantially larger 471 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.1 million per square millimeter.

The compute unit layouts diverge significantly. The W5500X has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The P102-100 counters with 3200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs—more than double in every category. Neither card features dedicated RT cores or tensor cores, as both predate the widespread adoption of hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration.

Memory architecture is another stark contrast. AMD pairs its 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s. NVIDIA uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, achieving 440.3 GB/s. The clock speeds tell a similar story: the W5500X has a base clock of 1187 MHz and boost of 1757 MHz, while the P102-100 runs at a higher 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost. The physical and electrical requirements also differ: the W5500X is a dual-slot card with a 125 W TDP and a suggested 300 W PSU, using the Apple MPX bus interface. The P102-100 is also dual-slot but has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W PSU, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and connects via PCIe 1.0 x4. It measures 267 mm in length. The AMD card has two HDMI 2.0b outputs; the NVIDIA card has no outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has an average benchmark score of 57661, which is 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA P102-100's average score of 57601.

Q: Can the NVIDIA P102-100 be used for display output?

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs, meaning it cannot connect to a monitor. The AMD W5500X, by contrast, has two HDMI 2.0b ports.

Q: Which card offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 provides 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth via its 320-bit bus and 5 GB of GDDR5X memory. The AMD W5500X offers 224.0 GB/s through a 128-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the FP16 compute performance difference?

A: The AMD W5500X delivers 10.80 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA P102-100 provides only 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), making the AMD card vastly superior for half-precision tasks.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X and the NVIDIA P102-100 have a production status of "End-of-life." The AMD card was released on December 10, 2019, while the NVIDIA card was released earlier on February 11, 2018.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has a pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s, which is over twice the AMD W5500X's pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the data is empty, so the comparison must rely on the individual benchmark scores and the nearest rival data provided. The most direct comparison comes from the average benchmark scores: the AMD W5500X scores 57661, while the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 57601. This 0.1% delta in favor of AMD is within the margin of error, effectively making them equal performers in aggregate.

Looking at the specific API tests for the NVIDIA card, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 65600 is its strongest result. This is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 49602, a difference of roughly 32%. This suggests that the P102-100 is significantly better optimized for Vulkan workloads than for OpenCL. The AMD card, with only a Metal benchmark score of 57661 in the data, cannot be directly compared on Vulkan or OpenCL, but its Metal performance is squarely in the same competitive range.

The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of this matchup. Both cards are within 0.1% of each other, and they both sit near the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, which scores 57599. The Intel Arc A580 is slightly ahead at 57756 (a -0.2% delta for the AMD card and -0.3% for NVIDIA), and the Intel Arc A570M leads the group at 58239 (a -1% delta for AMD and -1.1% for NVIDIA). This cluster of scores, all within roughly 1% of each other, indicates that these four GPUs are effectively interchangeable in terms of raw compute performance.

The biggest wins each way are not found in the aggregate scores but in the architectural specifications. The NVIDIA P102-100's FP32 performance of 10.77 TFLOPS is a 99% advantage over the AMD card's 5.398 TFLOPS. Similarly, the P102-100's texture rate of 336.6 GTexel/s is exactly double the W5500X's 168.7 GTexel/s. The AMD card's only significant computational win is in FP16, where its 10.80 TFLOPS is more than 64 times greater than NVIDIA's 168.3 GFLOPS. Memory bandwidth also favors NVIDIA heavily: 440.3 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s is a 96% difference. These numbers show that while the average benchmark scores are nearly identical, the underlying strengths and weaknesses of each card are profoundly different, making the choice dependent on the specific demands of the software being run.