AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the NVIDIA P102-100 as the clearly stronger compute part in this pairing. It wins both recorded benchmark disciplines, with an average benchmark score of 58528 against the AMD Radeon RX 6550M's 46702, a difference of roughly 25%. The P102-100 sits at the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 6550M sits at the 85th percentile, so both are respectable performers, but the NVIDIA card is the one to choose when raw throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan is the priority.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the choice when the workload cares about efficiency and modern feature support rather than absolute score. Its TDP is 80 W versus 250 W for the NVIDIA part, it uses a 6 nm process versus 16 nm, and it brings hardware ray tracing cores, which the P102-100 lacks entirely. The RX 6550M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the P102-100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). For a portable system, an integrated form factor, or any scenario where power draw and feature set matter more than peak FLOPS, the AMD part is the rational selection.

The NVIDIA P102-100 is end-of-life, while the RX 6550M is active in production, which matters for long-term availability. The P102-100 has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor at all; the RX 6550M's outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it is designed for laptop integration. Neither part is a general desktop gaming card in the traditional sense, but the data shows the NVIDIA part as a compute-first accelerator and the AMD part as a mobile-oriented GPU with modern API support.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families, different process nodes, and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors onto a 471 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a much higher density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The density numbers tell the story of process maturity: AMD fits roughly half the transistor count into less than a quarter of the silicon area.

The compute resource allocation differs dramatically. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the AMD part includes 16 ray tracing cores and also lacks tensor cores. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the P102-100 delivers 10.77 TFLOPS, while the RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS. FP16 performance flips the story, the P102-100 manages only 168.3 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the RX 6550M achieves 11.63 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, making the AMD part vastly superior for half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture is another major divide. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, producing 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 144.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has over three times the memory bandwidth, which directly feeds its higher fill rates: 134.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and 336.6 GTexel/s texture rate versus 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s for the AMD part.

The bus interface differs as well. The P102-100 lists PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an unusual specification for a 2018 card and likely reflects its mining-specific design. The RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, a modern standard. The NVIDIA part requires two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the AMD part needs no external power connectors at all and has no suggested PSU rating, consistent with its integrated form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the NVIDIA P102-100 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P102-100 scores 49602 against the RX 6550M's 42536, a 16.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens considerably: the P102-100 scores 67454 against 50867, a 32.6% advantage. The Vulkan result is the standout number in this comparison, showing that the NVIDIA part's advantage grows by roughly double when moving from the OpenCL workload to the Vulkan workload.

The pattern is consistent with the raw specifications. The P102-100's higher shading unit count (3200 versus 1024), higher bandwidth (440.3 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s), and higher FP32 throughput (10.77 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS) all point in the same direction. The RX 6550M's higher boost clock (2840 MHz versus 1683 MHz) and smaller die do not compensate for the massive resource deficit in these particular tests.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the positioning. The P102-100's average score of 58528 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58657) and 0.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58392). It is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Arc A570M (58239) and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58085). These are extremely tight margins, indicating that the P102-100 sits in a dense performance cluster where small score differences separate peers.

The RX 6550M's average score of 46702 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Arc A530M (46614) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46601). It leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46043) by 1.4% and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972) by 1.6%. The RX 6550M's margins over its nearest rivals are small but positive, showing that it holds its own in its own performance tier even though it trails the P102-100 by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on Pascal architecture, while the RX 6550M uses Navi 24 on RDNA 2.0. The process nodes are 16 nm and 6 nm respectively, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 11,800 million versus 5,400 million, and die sizes are 471 mm² versus 107 mm². Transistor density is 25.1 million per mm² for NVIDIA versus 50.5 million per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part: base clock is 1582 MHz for the P102-100 versus 2000 MHz for the RX 6550M, boost clock is 1683 MHz versus 2840 MHz, and the AMD part also lists a game clock of 2560 MHz. Memory clocks are 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the AMD card.

Memory configuration favors the NVIDIA part: 5 GB versus 4 GB, GDDR5X versus GDDR6, 320-bit versus 64-bit bus, and 440.3 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. Compute units favor NVIDIA on count: 3200 shading units versus 1024, 200 TMUs versus 64, 80 ROPs versus 32. The AMD part has 16 ray tracing cores; the NVIDIA part has none. FP32 is 10.77 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS, but FP16 is 168.3 GFLOPS versus 11.63 TFLOPS, a massive reversal.

Power and physical specifications diverge completely. The P102-100 has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, two 8-pin power connectors, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP, integrated form factor (IGP), no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is 267 mm long (10.5 inches); the AMD card has no listed dimensions. The P102-100 has no display outputs; the RX 6550M's outputs are portable-device dependent.

API support differs. The P102-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 4.0 x4 for AMD. The P102-100 is end-of-life and was released in 2018; the RX 6550M is active, was released in 2023, and lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58528, compared to 46702 for the AMD Radeon RX 6550M.

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

A: The P102-100 scores 67454 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 32.6% higher than the RX 6550M's 50867.

Q: Does the RX 6550M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6550M includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the P102-100 has no ray tracing cores at all.

Q: Which GPU is more efficient in terms of power draw?

A: The RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, while the P102-100 has a 250 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors plus a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can the P102-100 be used to drive a display?

A: No, the P102-100 has no display outputs. The RX 6550M's outputs are portable-device dependent, so it is also not a conventional desktop display card.

Q: How do the two compare on FP16 performance?

A: The RX 6550M is vastly ahead in FP16, delivering 11.63 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the P102-100 delivers only 168.3 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Q: Which GPU is still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is active in production. The NVIDIA P102-100 is end-of-life.