AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 and NVIDIA P102-100 are both end-of-life workstation-class graphics cards, yet they target fundamentally different workloads. The WX 9100 is a professional visualization card with a full display output suite, while the P102-100 is a mining-oriented accelerator with no display outputs at all. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the AMD card wins OpenCL by a wide margin, while the NVIDIA card dominates Vulkan. This analysis walks through the architectural roots of that split, the exact benchmark deltas, and what each card is best suited for based strictly on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has an average benchmark score of 64,212, which places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA P102-100 averages 58,528, sitting in the 88th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the WX 9100 in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 9100 scores 66,605 versus the P102-100’s 49,602. That is a 34.3% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the P102-100 scores 67,454, while the WX 9100 scores 54,711. The NVIDIA card leads by 18.9% in that test.

Q: What memory specifications differ between the two?

A: The WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The WX 9100 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the P102-100 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card?

A: The WX 9100’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 30HX with an average score of 63,842, a 0.6% delta. The P102-100’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657, a -0.2% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers, process nodes, and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die contains 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The NVIDIA P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on the older Pascal architecture, built by TSMC on a 16 nm process. Its die has 11,800 million transistors over 471 mm², translating to 25.1M transistors per mm². The density figures are nearly identical, though the AMD chip has slightly more transistors on a slightly larger die.

Shading resources differ significantly. The WX 9100 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The AMD card has 28% more shading units and 28% more TMUs, but the NVIDIA card has 25% more ROPs. This explains why the pixel rate favors NVIDIA: the P102-100 achieves 134.6 GPixel/s versus the WX 9100’s 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors AMD, with 384.0 GTexel/s versus 336.6 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Compute throughput follows the shading unit count. The WX 9100 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the P102-100 delivers 10.77 TFLOPS. For FP16, the difference is stark: the AMD card reaches 24.58 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card only manages 168.3 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. The WX 9100 is clearly built for compute-heavy workloads that benefit from FP16 acceleration. The P102-100’s Pascal architecture was never designed for that.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA in raw terms. The P102-100 has a base clock of 1582 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, compared to the WX 9100’s 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the AMD card’s higher core count and wider memory bus allow it to win in most throughput metrics. Memory type also diverges: HBM2 on the WX 9100 versus GDDR5X on the P102-100, with the AMD card providing 16 GB versus 5 GB on the NVIDIA card. The WX 9100’s memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s edges out the P102-100’s 440.3 GB/s.

Power and interface differences are notable. The WX 9100 has a TDP of 230 W with a single 6-pin and single 8-pin connector, suggesting a 550 W power supply. The P102-100 has a 250 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The bus interface is another major split: the WX 9100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the P102-100 is limited to PCIe 1.0 x4. The NVIDIA card also has no display outputs whatsoever, whereas the WX 9100 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were tested in two Geekbench workloads: OpenCL and Vulkan. Results show a clean split, with each card winning exactly one test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 scores 66,605, while the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 49,602. The delta is 34.3% in favor of AMD. This is a large margin, reflecting the WX 9100’s 4,096 shading units, 12.29 TFLOPS FP32, and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 capabilities. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the AMD card. The 483.8 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth versus 440.3 GB/s GDDR5X also contributes. In practical terms, the WX 9100 is roughly a third faster in this compute API, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or data processing tasks.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the situation reverses. The NVIDIA P102-100 scores 67,454, while the WX 9100 scores 54,711. The delta is 18.9% in favor of NVIDIA. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can exploit the P102-100’s higher clocks (1582 MHz base, 1683 MHz boost) and its 80 ROPs, which drive a pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card’s 5 GB of GDDR5X, while smaller, still provides 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is not a bottleneck in this test. The 18.9% lead in Vulkan is substantial, though smaller than AMD’s OpenCL advantage.

The overall win count is tied at 1-1. The average benchmark score still favors the WX 9100 (64,212 versus 58,528), which works out to a 9.7% advantage for AMD. The percentile ranks are close too: 89th for the WX 9100 versus 88th for the P102-100. This suggests that while the P102-100 is highly competitive in Vulkan, the AMD card has a higher overall performance profile across the tested workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. Manufacturing process: 14 nm for AMD versus 16 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 12,500 million versus 11,800 million. Die size: 495 mm² versus 471 mm². Base clock: 1200 MHz versus 1582 MHz. Boost clock: 1500 MHz versus 1683 MHz. Memory size: 16 GB versus 5 GB. Memory type: HBM2 versus GDDR5X. Memory bus: 2048-bit versus 320-bit. Memory bandwidth: 483.8 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s.

Shading units: 4,096 versus 3,200. TMUs: 256 versus 200. ROPs: 64 versus 80. Pixel rate: 96.00 GPixel/s versus 134.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 336.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS. FP16: 24.58 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS. TDP: 230 W versus 250 W. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 600 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 1.0 x4. Display outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus none. Vulkan version: 1.3 versus 1.4.

The only shared specifications are length (267 mm or 10.5 inches for both), dual-slot width, DirectX 12 (12_1) support, OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD, which can be stated once. The NVIDIA card has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 34.3%, has 16 GB of HBM2 memory, and offers six display outputs. It also delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16, making it the stronger compute card. The NVIDIA P102-100 wins Vulkan by 18.9%, has higher clocks, and more ROPs, but lacks display outputs entirely. Its 5 GB memory capacity is a third of the AMD card’s.

For users who need a professional workstation card with display connectivity, the WX 9100 is the only option that can drive monitors. Its 16 GB memory is also better suited for large datasets. For pure compute workloads that run through OpenCL, the WX 9100’s 34.3% lead is decisive. The NVIDIA card’s Vulkan advantage may appeal to specific applications that use that API, but the lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable as a primary workstation GPU. The P102-100 is a mining GPU, and its specification profile confirms that: no outputs, PCIe 1.0 x4 bandwidth, and a high TDP of 250 W.

The average benchmark score puts the WX 9100 ahead by 9.7%, and its percentile rank is one point higher. The verdict is that the WX 9100 is the better all-around card. The P102-100 wins only in Vulkan-specific scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins in:

• OpenCL compute workloads, with a 34.3% score advantage (66,605 versus 49,602)
• Memory capacity and bandwidth: 16 GB HBM2 at 483.8 GB/s versus 5 GB GDDR5X at 440.3 GB/s
• FP16 performance: 24.58 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS
• FP32 performance: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS
• Texture rate: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 336.6 GTexel/s
• Display output capability, with six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections
• Average benchmark score: 64,212 versus 58,528

NVIDIA P102-100 wins in:

• Vulkan performance, with an 18.9% score advantage (67,454 versus 54,711)
• Base clock: 1582 MHz versus 1200 MHz
• Boost clock: 1683 MHz versus 1500 MHz
• Pixel rate: 134.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s
• ROP count: 80 versus 64
• Vulkan API version support: 1.4 versus 1.3

The use-case split is straightforward. If the workload is OpenCL-based and requires large memory or FP16 acceleration, the WX 9100 is the pick. If the workload is Vulkan-based and prioritizes pixel throughput, the P102-100 has the edge. However, the WX 9100’s display outputs and higher average score make it the more versatile choice for any general-purpose or visualization role. The P102-100’s lack of outputs restricts it to headless compute tasks, where its Vulkan strength can be fully utilized.