AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The NVIDIA P102-100 and AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT occupy the same performance tier in the database, with average benchmark scores of 58,528 and 58,392 respectively, placing both in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Despite this near-identical aggregate standing, the two cards are fundamentally different products: the P102-100 is a mining-oriented Pascal part with no display outputs, while the RX 6950 XT is a full-fledged RDNA 2.0 gaming flagship. The head-to-head data reveals a lopsided contest in compute workloads, yet the overall percentile parity suggests each card excels in distinct scenarios that the limited shared benchmarks do not fully capture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available shared benchmarks both favor the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6950 XT scores 205,998 against the P102-100’s 49,602, a delta of -75.9% from the AMD card’s perspective, meaning the P102-100 trails by roughly three-quarters of the AMD card’s output. This is not a marginal gap; it reflects a fundamental difference in compute architecture and memory subsystem. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6950 XT again wins with 165,212 versus 67,454 for the P102-100, a delta of -59.2%. The Vulkan result narrows the relative gap but still leaves the NVIDIA part at less than half the AMD score.

The P102-100 has zero wins in the head-to-head set; the RX 6950 XT claims both. However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story: the P102-100’s average of 58,528 is actually 0.2% higher than the RX 6950 XT’s 58,392, despite losing both shared tests. This apparent contradiction arises because the P102-100 has only two benchmarks in its profile, while the RX 6950 XT has eleven, including several Passmark tests where the AMD card posts lower scores relative to its Geekbench results. For instance, the RX 6950 XT scores 28,070 in Passmark G3D and 14,199 in Passmark GPU Compute, while its Geekbench Metal score reaches 222,653. The P102-100’s average is buoyed by its Vulkan result, which is proportionally stronger than the AMD card’s Vulkan showing relative to its own peak.

Interpreting the deltas: the -75.9% OpenCL gap suggests the RX 6950 XT’s 5,120 shading units and 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 throughput vastly outpace the P102-100’s 3,200 shading units and 10.77 TFLOPS. The -59.2% Vulkan gap, while smaller, still indicates a dominant AMD advantage in that API. The nearest-rival data reinforces this tiering: the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (average 58,657) sits 0.2% above the P102-100, while the Intel Arc A570M (58,239) trails by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085) is 0.8% behind. Both cards in this comparison sit within a 0.5% band of each other, yet their benchmark profiles are wildly divergent.

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT scores 205,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 49,602. This represents a delta of -75.9%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers only about 24% of the AMD card’s OpenCL score.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58,528, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT’s 58,392. Both cards rank in the 88th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the P102-100 win any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT wins both. The P102-100’s win count is zero, while the RX 6950 XT has two wins.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6950 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has more capacity and higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The RX 6950 XT achieves 295.7 GPixel/s and 739.2 GTexel/s, versus the P102-100’s 134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s. The AMD card is more than twice as fast in both rasterization metrics.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RX 6950 XT?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT has a launch MSRP of 1,099 USD. The P102-100 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT wins every direct comparison available in the shared benchmark set. In OpenCL, its 205,998 score versus 49,602 is a 4.15x advantage, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL. In Vulkan, the 165,212 versus 67,454 result gives the AMD card a 2.45x lead, which is still substantial but less lopsided than OpenCL. The RX 6950 XT also benefits from a much broader benchmark portfolio: it has results across Passmark DX9, DX10, DX11, DX12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, plus Geekbench Metal and Vulkan. Its Passmark G3D score of 28,070 and GPU compute score of 14,199 indicate strong rasterization and compute capabilities beyond the two shared tests.

The NVIDIA P102-100, despite losing both head-to-head tests, still holds a marginal aggregate edge (58,528 average versus 58,392). This suggests that in the specific workloads represented by its two benchmarks—particularly Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 67,454—the card performs competitively when normalized against its limited test set. The P102-100’s 88th percentile ranking matches the RX 6950 XT, so in the database’s overall hierarchy, neither card is clearly superior. For users constrained to Vulkan-based workloads, the P102-100’s 67,454 score is closer to the RX 6950 XT’s 165,212 than the OpenCL gap would suggest, but it still loses by a wide margin.

Where the RX 6950 XT wins is in every measurable shared metric and in breadth of supported APIs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The RX 6950 XT also has 80 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the P102-100. For gaming, the RX 6950 XT’s display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a) are essential, whereas the P102-100 has no outputs at all. The P102-100’s only potential advantage is its lower TDP of 250 W versus 335 W, which could make it easier to cool in mining rigs, but this does not translate to any benchmark win.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every specification. The P102-100 uses a 16 nm process with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, while the RX 6950 XT uses a 7 nm process with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.1M / mm² for the NVIDIA part versus 51.5M / mm² for the AMD part, reflecting the newer node. Clock speeds differ: the P102-100 bases at 1,582 MHz and boosts to 1,683 MHz, while the RX 6950 XT bases at 1,860 MHz, boosts to 2,310 MHz, and has a game clock of 2,100 MHz. Memory clocks are 1,376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) for the P102-100 and 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 6950 XT.

Memory capacity and type differ: 5 GB GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus versus 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 440.3 GB/s for the P102-100 and 576.0 GB/s for the RX 6950 XT. The compute units diverge: the P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, while the RX 6950 XT has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The RX 6950 XT adds 80 ray tracing cores; the P102-100 has none. Pixel rate is 134.6 GPixel/s versus 295.7 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 336.6 GTexel/s versus 739.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.77 TFLOPS versus 23.65 TFLOPS. FP16 is 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) for the P102-100 and 47.31 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 6950 XT.

Power and physical specs also differ: TDP is 250 W versus 335 W, slot width is dual-slot versus triple-slot, and suggested PSU is 600 W versus 700 W. Both use 2x 8-pin power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 for the P102-100 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6950 XT. The RX 6950 XT has display outputs; the P102-100 has none. Dimensions are identical in length (267 mm / 10.5 inches), but the RX 6950 XT adds height (120 mm / 4.7 inches) and width (50 mm / 2 inches) data. The RX 6950 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1); both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA P102-100 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm node. It belongs to the “Mining GPUs” generation and was released on 2018-02-11. The architecture lacks ray tracing cores and tensor cores, and its FP16 throughput is severely limited at 168.3 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 at a tiny fraction of its FP32 rate. The P102-100’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is unusual for a GPU of this era, and its complete lack of display outputs confirms its mining-only purpose. Its production status is end-of-life.

The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT is based on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 21 chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 7 nm node. It belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi II (RX 6000) generation, released on 2022-05-09. The architecture includes 80 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 47.31 TFLOPS FP16 versus 23.65 TFLOPS FP32. The predecessor is listed as Navi, and the successor as Navi III. The RX 6950 XT supports PCIe 4.0 x16, a modern interface, and includes full display outputs. Its production status is also end-of-life.

The transistor count difference is stark: 11,800 million versus 26,800 million, yet the die sizes are relatively close (471 mm² versus 520 mm²). The 7 nm process enables a transistor density of 51.5M / mm², more than double the P102-100’s 25.1M / mm². This density advantage, combined with the RDNA 2.0 architecture’s design, explains the RX 6950 XT’s massive lead in shading units (5,120 versus 3,200) and ray tracing capability. The P102-100’s Pascal architecture, while competent for mining workloads, lacks the modern features—ray tracing, high FP16 throughput, and a contemporary PCIe interface—that define the RX 6950 XT. The RX 6950 XT’s higher TDP of 335 W reflects its larger compute footprint, while the P102-100’s 250 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it was optimized for dense mining arrays rather than performance per watt in general compute.