NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits decisively in favor of the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB. Across the single shared test in the database, Geekbench OpenCL, the A100 SXM4 40 GB records a score of 201096, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 records 87445. That is a 130% delta in favor of the A100, and it is the only head-to-head comparison available.

Looking at the broader benchmark footprint, the A100 SXM4 40 GB has two recorded tests. Beyond its OpenCL result, it also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 173198. The Quadro GP100 has no Vulkan result recorded in the database, so any assessment of graphics API performance for the Quadro is not possible from this data. The A100 therefore wins every category where both cards have data, and it also wins the category where only it has data.

The A100 SXM4 40 GB sits at the 98th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 187147 across its recorded tests. The Quadro GP100 sits at the 93rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 87445. That percentile gap, five points, understates the raw score gap because the percentile scale compresses at the top end. The A100 is not just marginally ahead; it is more than double the Quadro in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

The Quadro GP100 does have one structural advantage that the A100 lacks entirely: display outputs. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the A100 SXM4 has no outputs at all. For any workload that requires driving a monitor or a local display, the Quadro is the only one of the two that can do it directly. The A100 is a server module, built for compute racks, not workstations.

In terms of memory capacity, the A100 carries 40 GB of HBM2e, while the Quadro carries 16 GB of HBM2. The A100 also has a wider memory bus at 5120 bit versus 4096 bit, and more than double the bandwidth: 1.56 TB/s versus 732.2 GB/s. For datasets that exceed 16 GB, the Quadro simply cannot hold them in VRAM, and the A100 becomes the only viable choice between the two.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB is the superior compute product by a very wide margin. Its OpenCL score of 201096 is roughly 2.3 times the Quadro GP100's 87445. The A100 also has a higher percentile ranking, 98th versus 93rd, and a much higher average benchmark score of 187147 versus 87445.

Who should pick the A100 SXM4 40 GB? Anyone running compute-heavy workloads that fit the SXM form factor and do not require local display output. The 40 GB memory capacity, 1.56 TB/s bandwidth, and FP32 throughput of 19.49 TFLOPS make it a far stronger candidate for large-scale data processing, deep learning training, and scientific simulation. The A100 also brings tensor cores, 432 of them, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The A100's architecture, Ampere, is two generations newer than the Quadro's Pascal.

Who should pick the Quadro GP100? The use case is narrow but real. If the task requires a physical GPU in a workstation with display outputs, the Quadro is the only option between the two because the A100 SXM4 has no outputs. The Quadro is also a dual-slot PCIe card with a 1x 8-pin power connector, so it can be installed in a standard workstation motherboard. The A100 SXM4 is an SXM module, which requires a server board designed for that socket. The Quadro also consumes less power, 235 W versus 400 W, and has a lower suggested PSU rating, 550 W versus 800 W.

For raw compute, there is no contest. The A100 wins the only shared benchmark by 130%. The Quadro's only wins are in connectivity, power draw, and physical form factor. If those matter more than compute throughput, the Quadro is the practical pick. Otherwise, the A100 is the clear choice from the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The A100 SXM4 40 GB scores 201096, and the Quadro GP100 scores 87445. The delta is 130% in favor of the A100. That is not a marginal win; it is a decisive, more-than-doubling of the Quadro's score.

To put that in context, the A100's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation at 184664 (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB at 183725 (1.9% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell at 182109 (2.8% behind). The only rival that scores higher is the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB at 194415, which is 3.7% ahead of the A100. The Quadro GP100's nearest rivals, by contrast, are all far closer to its own score: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 at 87108 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85637 (2.1% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91134 (4% ahead). The Quadro is competing in a completely different performance tier.

The A100's Vulkan score of 173198 is not directly comparable to any Quadro result, since the Quadro has no Vulkan score in the database. But it is importantly the A100's Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score, which is typical for compute-oriented cards where OpenCL is the more optimized path. The Quadro, with its Pascal architecture and DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 API support, would likely perform differently in graphics workloads, but the database has no numbers to confirm that.

The FP32 figures tell the same story as the OpenCL scores. The A100 delivers 19.49 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Quadro delivers 10.34 TFLOPS. That is roughly 88% more FP32 throughput for the A100. The gap in FP16 is even larger: the A100 delivers 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1 ratio), while the Quadro delivers 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The A100 is nearly four times faster in FP16, which matters heavily for AI inference and training workloads that use mixed precision.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The A100 has a pixel rate of 225.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 609.1 GTexel/s. The Quadro has 138.5 GPixel/s and 323.2 GTexel/s respectively. The A100 leads by 63% in pixel rate and 88% in texture rate.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB has an average benchmark score of 187147, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has an average benchmark score of 87445.

Q: Does the Quadro GP100 have any benchmark where it beats the A100?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, the A100 wins with 201096 against 87445, a 130% delta. The Quadro has no other recorded benchmarks where it could compete.

Q: Can the A100 SXM4 40 GB be used in a standard workstation with a monitor?

A: No. The A100 SXM4 has no display outputs. The Quadro GP100 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it the only one of the two that can drive a display directly.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The A100 has 40 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 16 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. The A100 has more than double the capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: The A100 SXM4 40 GB has 432 tensor cores. The Quadro GP100 has no tensor cores at all.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A100 SXM4 has a TDP of 400 W and a suggested PSU of 800 W, with no power connectors (SXM module). The Quadro GP100 has a TDP of 235 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and uses one 8-pin power connector.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures, separated by two generations. The A100 SXM4 40 GB uses the Ampere architecture, built on the GA100 chip. The Quadro GP100 uses the Pascal architecture, built on the GP100 chip. The A100 belongs to the "Server Ampere (Axx)" generation, while the Quadro belongs to the "Quadro Pascal (Px000)" generation.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The A100 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 54,200 million transistors on a die size of 826 mm². The Quadro is built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC, with 15,300 million transistors on a die size of 610 mm². The A100 packs more than 3.5 times the transistor count into a die that is only about 35% larger. Transistor density tells the story: the A100 has 65.6 million transistors per mm², while the Quadro has 25.1 million per mm².

The compute resources are dramatically different. The A100 has 6912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs. The Quadro has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A100 has roughly double the shading units, double the TMUs, and about 67% more ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores. The A100 does have 432 tensor cores, while the Quadro has none.

Memory architecture also differs. The A100 uses HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The Quadro uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. The A100's memory clock is 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the Quadro's is 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective). The A100's memory system is not just larger, it is also faster per pin.

The API support differs as well. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A100 has no recorded API support in the database, consistent with its server-oriented design where compute APIs like CUDA and OpenCL are the primary interfaces.

Clock speeds are interesting. The Quadro actually has higher base and boost clocks: 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost, versus the A100's 1095 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the A100 delivers far more throughput because of its vastly larger execution resources and memory bandwidth.

The A100 is an SXM module with no power connectors and no display outputs. The Quadro is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with a single 8-pin power connector and full display output support. The A100 has a TDP of 400 W and a suggested PSU of 800 W. The Quadro has a TDP of 235 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

The release dates are far apart. The Quadro GP100 was released on 2016-09-30, and the A100 SXM4 40 GB was released on 2020-05-13. Both are now end-of-life in production status. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. The A100's predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based only on the recorded data:

• Process node: A100 is 7 nm, Quadro is 16 nm.
• Transistors: A100 has 54,200 million, Quadro has 15,300 million.
• Die size: A100 is 826 mm², Quadro is 610 mm².
• Transistor density: A100 is 65.6M / mm², Quadro is 25.1M / mm².
• Base clock: A100 is 1095 MHz, Quadro is 1304 MHz.
• Boost clock: A100 is 1410 MHz, Quadro is 1443 MHz.
• Memory clock: A100 is 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), Quadro is 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective).
• Memory size: A100 is 40 GB, Quadro is 16 GB.
• Memory type: A100 is HBM2e, Quadro is HBM2.
• Memory bus width: A100 is 5120 bit, Quadro is 4096 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: A100 is 1.56 TB/s, Quadro is 732.2 GB/s.
• Shading units: A100 has 6912, Quadro has 3584.
• TMUs: A100 has 432, Quadro has 224.
• ROPs: A100 has 160, Quadro has 96.
• Tensor cores: A100 has 432, Quadro has none.
• Pixel rate: A100 is 225.6 GPixel/s, Quadro is 138.5 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: A100 is 609.1 GTexel/s, Quadro is 323.2 GTexel/s.
• FP32: A100 is 19.49 TFLOPS, Quadro is 10.34 TFLOPS.
• FP16: A100 is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1), Quadro is 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: A100 is 400 W, Quadro is 235 W.
• Slot width: A100 is SXM Module, Quadro is Dual-slot.
• Power connectors: A100 has none, Quadro has 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: A100 is 800 W, Quadro is 550 W.
• Bus interface: A100 is PCIe 4.0 x16, Quadro is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: A100 has none, Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• API support: A100 has none recorded, Quadro has DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.
• Dimensions: Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, A100 has no recorded dimensions.
• Release date: A100 is 2020-05-13, Quadro is 2016-09-30.