AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two cards, though the margin varies significantly depending on the API tested. In the two shared workload tests, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins both, but the size of the advantage tells different stories about each card's strengths.

The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL. Here the AMD card scores 73,514 against the NVIDIA P102-100's 49,602, a 48.2% delta. That is not a close contest. OpenCL tends to favor architectures with balanced compute and memory throughput, and the Radeon's RDNA 2 design clearly exploits that workload better. For any compute task that relies on OpenCL, the AMD card is in a different league.

The Vulkan result is tighter but still favors AMD. The Radeon PRO W6600 posts 78,428, while the P102-100 manages 67,454, a 16.3% advantage. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, so this narrower gap suggests the NVIDIA card's Pascal architecture is not entirely outclassed in modern graphics workloads. Still, the AMD card holds the lead.

There is no Geekbench Metal result for the NVIDIA P102-100, which makes sense given its mining-oriented design with no display outputs. The AMD card's Metal score of 94,042 is the highest of any benchmark recorded for either product, reinforcing its usability across Apple-centric compute environments. The P102-100 cannot participate in that test at all.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 sits at the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 81,995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X at 80,959 (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 at 79,842 (2.7% behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB at 79,605 (3% behind). The P102-100, by contrast, ranks at the 88th percentile with an average score of 58,528, placing it near the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Arc A570M at 58,239 (0.5% behind). The percentile gap of 4 points translates into a substantial average score difference of roughly 23,467 points, which aligns with the head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip with NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm node. That process difference is significant: 7 nm versus 16 nm. The AMD chip packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has slightly more transistors at 11,800 million, but spreads them across a much larger 471 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 25.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD design is more than twice as dense per area.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The AMD card carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, which provides 440.3 GB/s, nearly double the bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's wider bus compensates for its older memory type, but the capacity is lower. For workloads that need more than 5 GB of frame buffer, the AMD card has the advantage.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The AMD card has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the P102-100 lacks entirely. The NVIDIA card counters with 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. In raw shader count, NVIDIA leads by a wide margin, but the AMD card's newer architecture extracts more efficiency per unit.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The Radeon PRO W6600 runs at a base of 2,331 MHz and boosts to 2,580 MHz. The P102-100 operates at 1,582 MHz base and 1,683 MHz boost. That is a substantial clock advantage for AMD, roughly 47% higher at base and 53% higher at boost. The memory clocks also differ: AMD's GDDR6 runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA's GDDR5X runs at 1,376 MHz (11 Gbps effective).

Power draw is another major separation. The AMD card consumes 100 W TDP with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The P102-100 draws 250 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and needs a 600 W PSU. The AMD card is far more power-efficient, which is a direct consequence of the smaller process node and newer architecture.

Physical design reflects their intended markets. The AMD card is single-slot, 241 mm long (9.5 inches), and outputs four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot, 267 mm long (10.5 inches), and has no display outputs at all. The P102-100 was designed for mining, not for driving monitors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 73,514 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 48.2% higher than the NVIDIA P102-100's 49,602. This is the largest performance gap in the recorded data.

Q: Does the NVIDIA P102-100 support any display outputs?

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any workstation task that requires connecting monitors. The AMD card provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 delivers 440.3 GB/s over a 320-bit bus, compared to the AMD card's 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. However, the AMD card has 8 GB of VRAM versus the NVIDIA card's 5 GB.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a 100 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The NVIDIA P102-100 has a 250 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and needs a 600 W PSU.

Q: Does the NVIDIA P102-100 have ray tracing cores?

A: No. The P102-100 has no ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: Which card ranks higher in the overall database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is at the 92nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 81,995. The NVIDIA P102-100 is at the 88th percentile with an average score of 58,528.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process is 7 nm for AMD versus 16 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are close (11,060 million for AMD, 11,800 million for NVIDIA), but die size is dramatically different: 237 mm² for AMD versus 471 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is 46.7M per mm² for AMD versus 25.1M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: AMD runs at 2,331 MHz base and 2,580 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 1,582 MHz base and 1,683 MHz boost. Memory is 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for AMD, versus 5 GB GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s for AMD versus 440.3 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Compute units: AMD has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 165.1 GPixel/s for AMD versus 134.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 289.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 336.6 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 9.247 TFLOPS for AMD versus 10.77 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD versus 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) for NVIDIA, a massive difference in half-precision capability.

Power and physical: AMD is 100 W TDP, single-slot, one 6-pin connector, 300 W suggested PSU, 241 mm long, and has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. NVIDIA is 250 W TDP, dual-slot, two 8-pin connectors, 600 W suggested PSU, 267 mm long, and has no outputs. Bus interface differs too: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4. API support: AMD supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates are three years apart: AMD launched on 2021-06-07, NVIDIA on 2018-02-11. The AMD card had a launch MSRP of 649 USD; the NVIDIA card has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins in every recorded benchmark head-to-head. It dominates OpenCL with a 48.2% lead, which indicates strong general-purpose compute performance. It also wins Vulkan with a 16.3% lead, showing it handles modern graphics APIs well. Its 28 ray tracing cores make it the only card here capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The 8 GB VRAM capacity is more useful for modern workloads than the NVIDIA card's 5 GB, especially for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The four DisplayPort outputs allow multi-monitor setups, which the P102-100 cannot support at all. The 100 W TDP means it can be deployed in systems with modest power supplies, and the single-slot design fits in denser chassis.

The NVIDIA P102-100 has specific advantages in certain areas, even if it loses the benchmark tests. Its 440.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly double the AMD card's, which can benefit workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound. The 3,200 shading units and 200 TMUs are higher counts than AMD's, and the FP32 throughput of 10.77 TFLOPS exceeds AMD's 9.247 TFLOPS. In raw pixel throughput, AMD wins at 165.1 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 134.6 GPixel/s, but in texture rate NVIDIA takes the lead at 336.6 GTexel/s versus AMD's 289.0 GTexel/s. The dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors suggests it was built for sustained heavy loads, though at the cost of much higher power draw. Its 88th percentile ranking places it near cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT and Intel Arc A570M, so it is not a weak performer in absolute terms.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation for most users: choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6600. It wins both shared benchmarks, has a higher percentile ranking (92 versus 88), and offers features that the NVIDIA card simply lacks: display outputs, ray tracing cores, 8 GB of VRAM, modern PCIe 4.0 interface, and dramatically lower power consumption. The 48.2% OpenCL advantage is decisive for compute workloads. The 16.3% Vulkan advantage shows it is not a fluke. The AMD card is also three years newer, which explains its architectural superiority.

The NVIDIA P102-100 should only be considered for very specific scenarios. If a workload requires massive memory bandwidth (440.3 GB/s) and does not need display output or more than 5 GB of VRAM, it could be a viable option. Its higher FP32 throughput and texture rate might help in certain compute tasks. However, the lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable as a primary workstation GPU. The 250 W TDP and 600 W PSU requirement are significant system constraints. The PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a serious bottleneck that could negate its bandwidth advantage in real-world use.

For a professional workstation that needs to drive monitors, run modern graphics APIs, handle ray-traced workloads, or operate in a power-constrained environment, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the only rational choice. The benchmark results, the feature set, and the efficiency data all point the same way. The P102-100 is a mining-era relic that, while not without compute strengths, cannot match the AMD card where it matters most. The database's percentile rankings reflect this: the AMD card sits 4 percentile points higher, and its average benchmark score is 40% better. There is no recorded scenario in which the NVIDIA card wins.