NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA’s professional GPU lineup. The database places the A100 in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro GP100 sits in the 93rd percentile. Their recorded benchmark scores show a substantial gap, with the A100 achieving 207,124 points in Geekbench OpenCL against 87,445 points for the GP100, a 136.9% difference. This analysis examines the architectural generation gap, raw performance data, and specification differences between these two end-of-life server and workstation cards.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the A100 and the Quadro GP100 in the recorded benchmark?

A: In the single Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 scored 207,124 points against 87,445 for the GP100. This gives the A100 a 136.9% higher score, and it wins the head-to-head comparison 1 to 0.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The A100 is 5.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000D (195,964 points) and 6.5% ahead of the Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB (194,415 points). It trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D by 5.8% and the NVIDIA PG506-232 by 8%. The Quadro GP100 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108 points) and 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637 points), but it is 4% behind the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134 points) and 4.6% behind the RTX A4500 (91,671 points).

Q: Which card has more memory and what is the bandwidth difference?

A: The A100 has 80 GB of HBM2e memory with a 5120-bit bus and 1.94 TB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the architectural generations and process nodes of these two GPUs?

A: The A100 uses the GA100 chip based on the Ampere architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Do these cards have display outputs?

A: The A100 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only accelerator. The Quadro GP100 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, allowing direct display connectivity.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The GA100 chip in the A100 contains 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die. The GP100 chip in the Quadro contains 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The A100 is built on the Ampere architecture, which introduces tensor cores as a dedicated feature. The GA100 chip includes 432 tensor cores, which the Pascal-based GP100 completely lacks. This represents a major functional difference, as the A100 has hardware acceleration for tensor operations, while the Quadro GP100 relies solely on standard compute units.

The manufacturing process also differs significantly. The A100 uses TSMC’s 7 nm node, while the Quadro GP100 uses the older 16 nm node. This directly affects transistor density: the GA100 packs 65.6 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GP100 achieves 25.1 million per square millimeter. The total transistor count reflects this: 54,200 million for the A100 versus 15,300 million for the GP100, despite the A100’s die being only 826 mm² versus 610 mm² for the GP100.

The memory subsystems are architecturally different as well. The A100 uses HBM2e memory, a newer and faster variant, while the GP100 uses the original HBM2. This is paired with different bus widths: 5120 bits for the A100 versus 4096 bits for the GP100. The A100’s memory clock is listed as 1512 MHz with 3 Gbps effective speed, while the GP100 runs at 715 MHz with 1430 Mbps effective.

Compute capabilities scale with these architectural differences. The A100 has 6,912 shading units, 432 texture mapping units, and 160 ROPs. The GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A100’s FP32 throughput is 19.49 TFLOPS, nearly double the GP100’s 10.34 TFLOPS. In FP16, the A100 reaches 77.97 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the GP100 reaches 20.69 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

The bus interface also differs. The A100 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GP100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This affects host communication bandwidth, though the benchmark data does not isolate this factor. The power delivery is different too: the A100 requires an 8-pin EPS connector with a 300 W TDP and a suggested 700 W PSU, while the GP100 uses a single 8-pin connector with a 235 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single head-to-head test: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the A100 scores 207,124 points against 87,445 for the GP100. The delta is 136.9%, meaning the A100 is more than twice as fast in this compute workload. This is the only direct comparison, and the A100 wins it decisively.

The A100’s score of 207,124 places it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA PG506-232 at 225,124 points, which is 8% ahead, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D at 219,827 points, which is 5.8% ahead. The A100 sits above the NVIDIA RTX 6000D at 195,964 points (5.7% behind the A100) and the Tesla V100S at 194,415 points (6.5% behind).

The Quadro GP100’s score of 87,445 places it in the 93rd percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, scores 87,108 points, a mere 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85,637 points, 2.1% behind. The GP100 trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134 points) by 4% and the RTX A4500 (91,671 points) by 4.6%.

These scores contextualize the generational leap. The A100’s 207,124 points are not just higher; they place the card in a different performance tier. The GP100’s 87,445 points put it in a mid-range bracket among modern rivals, while the A100 competes at the top of the database. The 136.9% delta between them is larger than the difference between the GP100 and any of its listed rivals, underscoring the architectural advantage of the Ampere design.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The most striking difference is memory capacity: 80 GB for the A100 versus 16 GB for the GP100. The memory type also differs, with HBM2e versus HBM2. The bus width is 5120 bits versus 4096 bits, and the bandwidth is 1.94 TB/s versus 732.2 GB/s.

The compute resources are nearly doubled in the A100. It has 6,912 shading units versus 3,584, 432 TMUs versus 224, and 160 ROPs versus 96. The A100 adds 432 tensor cores, while the GP100 has none. The FP32 performance is 19.49 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 77.97 TFLOPS versus 20.69 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GP100 has a higher base clock at 1304 MHz versus 1065 MHz, and a slightly higher boost clock at 1443 MHz versus 1410 MHz. However, the A100’s memory clock is significantly higher at 1512 MHz versus 715 MHz, contributing to its bandwidth advantage.

The process node is 7 nm for the A100 versus 16 nm for the GP100. Transistor counts are 54,200 million versus 15,300 million, and die sizes are 826 mm² versus 610 mm². Transistor density is 65.6M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm².

Power requirements differ. The A100 has a 300 W TDP with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 700 W PSU. The GP100 has a 235 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with identical dimensions: 267 mm length and 111 mm height.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The A100 has no outputs, while the GP100 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The API support also differs: the GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the A100’s API fields are not recorded in the database.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A100 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GP100. Release dates are also far apart: the A100 launched in June 2021, while the GP100 launched in September 2016. Both are marked as end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for compute-heavy workloads. The A100 PCIe 80 GB delivers 136.9% higher Geekbench OpenCL scores than the Quadro GP100, with 80 GB of HBM2e memory versus 16 GB of HBM2, and 1.94 TB/s bandwidth versus 732.2 GB/s. Its tensor cores, newer 7 nm process, and PCIe 4.0 interface provide architectural advantages that the GP100 cannot match. For any application that relies on raw compute throughput, FP32, or FP16 performance, the A100 is the superior choice.

The Quadro GP100 retains relevance through its display outputs and lower power draw. It provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, making it a viable option for workstations requiring direct display connectivity. Its 235 W TDP and single 8-pin connector are less demanding than the A100’s 300 W TDP and 8-pin EPS requirement. Its 93rd percentile ranking shows it remains competitive against modern mid-range cards like the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, which it beats by 0.4%.

Buyers should choose the A100 for pure compute acceleration, particularly in server environments where display outputs are unnecessary and tensor core acceleration is valuable. The 99th percentile score and the lead over rivals like the RTX 6000D (5.7%) and Tesla V100S (6.5%) confirm its position near the top of the database. The Quadro GP100 is better suited for legacy workstation deployments where display output is required, PCIe 3.0 is sufficient, and the lower power envelope is preferred. Its performance gap to the A100 is substantial, but its functionality set is different.

The recorded data shows no benchmark where the GP100 wins. The A100 wins the single head-to-head test, and its specification sheet is superior in almost every category except clocks and power consumption. The verdict from the measurements is straightforward: the A100 is a modern high-end compute accelerator, while the GP100 is an older, lower-power workstation card with display capabilities.