AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

The NVIDIA P106-100 and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they were built for entirely different realities. The data shows a clear, consistent performance gap in the available head-to-head benchmarks, with the NVIDIA part winning both recorded tests. However, the comparison extends beyond raw frame rates, as the architecture, memory subsystem, and physical design of each card tell a story of divergent engineering goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the two direct comparisons available, the NVIDIA P106-100 establishes a commanding lead over the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL. The most dramatic margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the P106-100 scores 35,951 points against the Vega M GL’s 19,549 points. This translates to an 83.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial gap that indicates a significant difference in raw compute throughput for general-purpose workloads.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still decisive win for NVIDIA. The P106-100 posts a score of 32,897, while the AMD card manages 22,757 points. That is a 44.6% delta in favor of the P106-100. While the gap shrinks compared to OpenCL, it remains large enough to suggest that the NVIDIA architecture holds a notable edge in this graphics API workload as well. In total, the NVIDIA P106-100 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, with zero wins for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the trend continues. The P106-100 has an average score of 23,249, which places it at the 68th percentile among all GPUs. The Vega M GL averages 21,153, putting it at the 66th percentile. The difference of roughly 10% in average score is smaller than the head-to-head deltas, likely because the averages include a wider mix of workloads, but the direction is consistent. In the nearest rival comparisons, the P106-100 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, the AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X. The Vega M GL, by contrast, is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8970M and just 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, indicating it is clustered with a different performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs employ fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers, and the data reflects those design philosophies. The NVIDIA P106-100 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP106 chip manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the GCN 4.0 architecture, based on the Polaris 22 chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, for a density of 24.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is slightly larger in both transistor count and die size, but the similar densities suggest both processes were utilized efficiently.

The raw compute resources show a more interesting split. Both GPUs feature 1,280 shading units and 80 texture mapping units (TMUs). However, the NVIDIA part has 48 render output units (ROPs), while the AMD card has just 32. This difference in ROP count directly contributes to the pixel fillrate disparity: the P106-100 achieves 82.03 GPixel/s, while the Vega M GL manages only 32.35 GPixel/s. The texture fillrate also favors NVIDIA, with 136.7 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s. In terms of floating-point performance, the P106-100 delivers 4.375 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Vega M GL offers 2.588 TFLOPS. A notable architectural difference appears in FP16 performance: NVIDIA’s part provides a meager 68.36 GFLOPS (a 1:64 ratio to FP32), while AMD’s card offers 2.588 TFLOPS at a full 1:1 ratio, making it far more capable for workloads that utilize half-precision math.

Clock speeds reinforce the performance gap. The NVIDIA P106-100 runs at a base clock of 1506 MHz and boosts to 1709 MHz. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL operates at a much lower 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost. This nearly 600 MHz difference in boost clock explains a significant portion of the compute advantage. Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The NVIDIA card uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 8 Gbps. The AMD card uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a massive 1024-bit bus, but runs at a lower 1400 Mbps effective speed, resulting in 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the wider bus, the AMD part has slightly less bandwidth and less total memory capacity.

The physical design further separates these two. The NVIDIA P106-100 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 250 mm length, and a 120 W TDP. It requires a 300 W power supply and connects via PCIe 1.0 x16. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, however, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dedicated slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it was designed to be embedded in a laptop or compact system. The TDP of 65 W is nearly half that of the NVIDIA card, reflective of its intended role in power-constrained environments.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark data, the NVIDIA P106-100 is the clear winner in raw compute and graphics performance. Its 83.9% lead in OpenCL and 44.6% lead in Vulkan indicate that it is better suited for any application that relies on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The higher pixel and texture fillrates suggest it handles traditional rasterization tasks more effectively. The 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while slower in clock speed than HBM2, offers 50% more capacity than the AMD part’s 4 GB, which could be an advantage in workloads with larger memory footprints.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, does have specific strengths that align with its design. Its 65 W TDP is nearly half that of the NVIDIA card, making it a far more efficient solution for thermally constrained systems. The 1:1 FP16 ratio is a significant architectural feature, allowing it to match its FP32 throughput in half-precision tasks; this is something the NVIDIA part cannot do, as its FP16 performance is a tiny fraction of its FP32 output. The HBM2 memory, while lower in total bandwidth, operates on a 1024-bit bus, which may offer lower latency in some access patterns. The IGP form factor means it requires no additional power connectors or slot space, making it suitable for compact portable devices where a discrete card like the P106-100 would not physically fit.

The percentile rankings reflect this split. The P106-100 sits at the 68th percentile, while the Vega M GL sits at the 66th, but the margin between them in the overall distribution is small. The nearest rival data for the NVIDIA part shows a cluster of AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, AMD Radeon RX 6600M, and AMD Radeon R9 M290X, all within 0.3% of its average score. For the AMD part, the rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, with deltas ranging from -1.1% to +2.1%. This indicates that neither card is an outlier; they each sit in a competitive mid-range performance band, but the NVIDIA part consistently scores higher.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA P106-100 is the superior performer in every measured category that matters for compute and graphics. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins, offers higher fillrates, more memory capacity, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The Pascal architecture, with its higher clock speeds and larger ROP count, delivers a clear advantage in the tests recorded. For any user who prioritizes raw performance and has the power budget, a 120 W TDP, and a PCIe slot available, the P106-100 is the obvious choice based on scores.

However, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is not without merit. Its 65 W TDP and IGP form factor make it the only viable option in this comparison for ultra-portable or integrated systems where a discrete card is impossible. The 1:1 FP16 capability is a unique feature that could be decisive for specific compute workloads that rely on half-precision math, even if the overall FP32 performance is lower. The HBM2 memory, with its 1024-bit bus, represents a different memory technology that may offer benefits in certain bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, despite the slightly lower peak bandwidth. The choice between these two is less about performance and more about the physical and power constraints of the target system. If the system can accommodate a discrete dual-slot card, the NVIDIA part wins outright. If the system requires an integrated solution with minimal power draw, the AMD part is the only option presented.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 has an average benchmark score of 23,249, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has an average score of 21,153.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards in a head-to-head test?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA P106-100 is 83.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL.

Q: How do the memory types differ between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher FP16 compute capability?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL offers 2.588 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with its FP32, while the NVIDIA P106-100 provides only 68.36 GFLOPS of FP16.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD card wins?

A: No, the head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA P106-100 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, with zero wins for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL.