AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs NVIDIA P104-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two very different GPU designs with separate benchmark portfolios, which makes direct comparison a matter of interpreting each card's strongest metrics. The NVIDIA P104-100 posts an average benchmark score of 32,982, placing it at the 77th percentile of all GPUs in the database. By contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X averages 27,973, sitting at the 73rd percentile. That gap of 5,009 points, roughly 17.9% in favor of the NVIDIA card, represents the headline performance difference between these two.

Looking at compute workloads, the P104-100 delivers 6.655 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the W5500X manages 5.398 TFLOPS. That puts NVIDIA ahead by about 23.3% in single-precision floating-point work. The gap narrows somewhat in texture fill, where the P104-100 achieves 208.0 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s for the AMD card, a 23.3% advantage. Pixel fill tells a similar story: 110.9 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 56.22 GPixel/s for AMD, a 97.3% difference that shows just how much faster the P104-100 rasterizes.

However, the AMD card strikes back in half-precision compute. The W5500X delivers 10.80 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the P104-100 manages only 104.0 GFLOPS with a heavily gimped 1:64 ratio. That is a 103.8x advantage for AMD in FP16 workloads, though the practical relevance depends entirely on software that actually uses half-precision paths.

In synthetic 3D Mark testing, the P104-100 scores 1,413 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. For OpenCL compute, it reaches 52,368 in Geekbench, and in Vulkan it scores 45,165. The W5500X has only one recorded benchmark: 27,973 in Geekbench Metal, which is an Apple-specific API test the NVIDIA card cannot run due to having no display outputs and no Metal support. That single score anchors the AMD card's average and explains why its rival list differs so much.

The nearest-rival data confirms the P104-100's position. It sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32,849, delta 0.4%), the T550 Mobile (33,161, delta -0.5%), and the GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile (33,170, delta -0.6%). All four cards are clustered within a 1.3% band, indicating the P104-100 is competitive with modern mobile GPUs in aggregate scoring. The AMD card, meanwhile, sits within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020, delta -0.2%), the Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, delta 0.3%), and the Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839, delta 0.5%). The W5500X occupies a lower performance tier, roughly 15% below the P104-100's peer group.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA P104-100 wins in raw rasterization and traditional compute. Its 64 ROPs versus 32 on the AMD card, combined with a 256-bit memory bus and 320.3 GB/s of bandwidth, give it a commanding lead in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 97.3% pixel rate advantage and 23.3% texture rate advantage mean that any workload heavy on fragment shading or texture sampling will favor the NVIDIA card. Its FP32 output of 6.655 TFLOPS also positions it ahead for scientific computing, simulation, and other single-precision tasks.

The P104-100 also wins in API coverage for general-purpose use. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the AMD card's API list. But the NVIDIA card's Geekbench Vulkan score of 45,165 shows it can handle cross-platform graphics APIs with strong efficiency. Its OpenCL score of 52,368 further cements its compute credentials. The card's 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, built on TSMC's 16 nm process, deliver a transistor density of 22.9M per mm², which is lower than AMD's but still capable of high absolute throughput.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins decisively in half-precision compute. Its 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 output with a 2:1 ratio is a massive advantage over the P104-100's 104.0 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. For machine learning inference, certain image processing pipelines, and any workload that can exploit reduced precision, the W5500X is the clear choice. The AMD card also offers double the memory capacity at 8 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR5X, which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures that exceed the NVIDIA card's capacity.

The W5500X also wins in power efficiency per transistor. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die on TSMC's 7 nm process, achieving a density of 40.5M per mm², nearly double the NVIDIA card's density. Its 125 W TDP is lower than the P104-100's unspecified TDP, but the P104-100's suggested PSU of 200 W versus 300 W for the AMD card suggests the NVIDIA part draws less under typical loads. The AMD card also has a significant advantage in display output: it offers 2x HDMI 2.0b, while the P104-100 has no display outputs at all, making the W5500X the only viable option for any use case requiring a monitor connection.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For pure compute throughput, especially FP32-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA P104-100 is the stronger card. Its average benchmark score of 32,982 versus 27,973 for the AMD card, combined with a 77th versus 73rd percentile ranking, shows it sits in a higher performance tier overall. The 23.3% FP32 advantage and near-doubled pixel rate make it the better choice for rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute where precision matters and memory capacity is not the bottleneck.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is the better pick for anyone who needs display outputs, half-precision performance, or more memory. Its 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is double the P104-100's 4 GB, and its 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 throughput is in a completely different league. The 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs make it functional as a workstation card, whereas the P104-100 is a mining-focused product with zero display connectivity. The W5500X also carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which the database records as its only pricing reference.

Given the head-to-head benchmark array is empty, the verdict relies on the separate benchmark portfolios and architectural data. The P104-100 wins on aggregate performance and rasterization. The W5500X wins on memory capacity, half-precision compute, and connectivity. Users with compute-heavy, headless workloads should choose NVIDIA. Users with visual output requirements, FP16 needs, or large memory footprints should choose AMD. The 4 percentage point difference in percentile rank (77 versus 73) is meaningful but not overwhelming, and each card's specific strengths outweigh the aggregate score in targeted applications.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P104-100 averages 32,982 points, which is 5,009 points higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X's 27,973 points.

Q: How do the two cards compare in FP32 compute?

A: The P104-100 delivers 6.655 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the W5500X manages 5.398 TFLOPS, giving NVIDIA a 23.3% advantage.

Q: Which card is better for half-precision workloads?

A: The AMD W5500X is dramatically better, offering 10.80 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, versus 104.0 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio on the P104-100.

Q: Can the NVIDIA P104-100 connect to a display?

A: No, the P104-100 has no display outputs, while the W5500X provides 2x HDMI 2.0b ports.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The P104-100 has 4 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 320.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How close are these cards to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The P104-100 is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA T600 Mobile, T550 Mobile, RTX 3050 Mobile, and AMD Radeon Pro 570. The W5500X is within 0.5% of the GTX 980 Ti, RX 7800M, Radeon Pro Vega 20, and FirePro S7150.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA P104-100 uses the GP104 chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The card features 1920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. Its memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, achieving 320.3 GB/s bandwidth. The base clock is 1607 MHz with a boost clock of 1733 MHz, and memory runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 7 nm process. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², which is 77% higher than the NVIDIA card. The W5500X has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its memory is 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The base clock is 1187 MHz with a boost clock of 1757 MHz, and memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. Pascal is a mature, high-throughput design optimized for raw fill rates and FP32 compute, with a 1:64 FP16 ratio indicating half-precision was not a priority. RDNA 1.0 introduces a 2:1 FP16 ratio, showing AMD's focus on mixed-precision workloads. The P104-100 has double the ROP count and double the memory bus width, which directly explains its pixel rate and bandwidth advantages. The W5500X has double the memory capacity and a much smaller die, which explains its efficiency gains.

The bus interfaces also differ fundamentally. The P104-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x4, an unusual choice for a mining card that limits host transfer speeds. The W5500X uses Apple MPX, a proprietary Apple bus interface, reflecting its intended deployment in Mac Pro systems. Power delivery differs as well: the P104-100 requires a 1x 8-pin connector with a 200 W suggested PSU, while the W5500X has no listed power connectors but suggests a 300 W PSU. Both cards are dual-slot designs and are end-of-life products, with the NVIDIA card releasing on 2017-12-11 and the AMD card on 2019-12-10.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The P104-100 belongs to the Mining GPUs generation, a product line aimed at cryptocurrency mining with no display outputs. The W5500X belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series) generation, designed for Apple Mac Pro workstations with 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs. These positioning differences explain the divergent feature sets: the NVIDIA card prioritizes raw compute density, while the AMD card balances compute, memory capacity, and display functionality for professional creative work.