NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single benchmark result for each GPU, and they do not share a common test. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB was measured with Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 183,725 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 was measured with Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 87,445 points. Because these are different APIs, a direct numerical comparison is not possible from the database. However, the percentile ranks provide a meaningful cross-reference: the A100 sits at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro GP100 sits at the 93rd percentile. That five-point percentile gap indicates a substantial performance tier difference, though the exact magnitude cannot be quantified from the available data.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies the performance context. The A100 SXM4 80 GB is effectively tied with the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation, which scores 184,664, a delta of only -0.5%. It is also 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell (182,109) and 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D (178,050). The closest rival is the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB at 187,147, which is 1.8% higher. These deltas are all within a narrow band, suggesting the A100 80 GB competes at the very top of the database's performance hierarchy.

The Quadro GP100, by contrast, shows a wider spread among its nearest rivals. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108) and 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile by 4% (91,134) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 4.6% (91,671). This indicates the GP100 sits in a mid-to-upper tier, but with more variance around its position. The A100's closest competitors are all within a few percentage points, while the GP100's competitors span a wider range, implying the GP100's performance class is less tightly clustered.

The absolute score gap between the two cards is roughly 96,280 points, but that comparison spans different benchmark APIs. What is clear from the database is that the A100's average benchmark score (183,725) is more than double the GP100's (87,445). Even accounting for API differences, a score ratio of approximately 2.1 to 1 strongly suggests the A100 delivers a significantly higher compute throughput in the workloads captured by these tests. The percentile ranks corroborate this: the A100 is in the top 2% of all GPUs, while the GP100 is in the top 7%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB has an average benchmark score of 183,725 on Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has an average score of 87,445 on Geekbench OpenCL. The A100's score is more than double that of the GP100.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other graphics cards?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB sits at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms approximately 98% of the database. The Quadro GP100 sits at the 93rd percentile, outperforming approximately 93% of the database.

Q: What is the closest rival to the A100 SXM4 80 GB?

A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation, which scores 184,664, a delta of -0.5% relative to the A100. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB scores 187,147, which is 1.8% higher than the 80 GB version.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro GP100?

A: The closest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, which scores 87,108, a delta of 0.4% relative to the GP100. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile and RTX A4500 are 4% and 4.6% higher, respectively.

Q: Do the two GPUs share any benchmark results?

A: No. The database records a Geekbench Vulkan score for the A100 and a Geekbench OpenCL score for the GP100. There are no overlapping benchmark entries in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB has a pixel rate of 225.6 GPixel/s, which is 63% higher than the Quadro GP100's 138.5 GPixel/s. The A100 also has a texture rate of 609.1 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s for the GP100.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB is the clear performance leader. Its average benchmark score of 183,725 places it at the 98th percentile, while the Quadro GP100's 87,445 places it at the 93rd percentile. The A100 also holds commanding leads in raw throughput metrics: FP32 compute at 19.49 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS, FP16 at 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) versus 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1), and memory bandwidth at 2.04 TB/s versus 732.2 GB/s.

For users prioritizing maximum compute density in a server context, the A100 is the obvious choice. It delivers roughly double the FP32 throughput, nearly four times the FP16 throughput, and nearly three times the memory bandwidth of the GP100. The A100's 80 GB of HBM2e memory also dwarfs the GP100's 16 GB of HBM2, making it suited for large-model workloads. The GP100, however, offers a lower thermal envelope at 235 W versus 400 W, and it includes display outputs, which the A100 lacks entirely. If the workload requires direct video output or a lower power draw, the GP100 has a functional advantage, but on raw compute performance, the A100 wins decisively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The A100 SXM4 80 GB uses a GA100 chip built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 54,200 million transistors on a 826 mm² die. The Quadro GP100 uses a GP100 chip on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC, with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. The A100's transistor density is 65.6M per mm², versus 25.1M per mm² for the GP100.

Memory configurations are vastly different. The A100 has 80 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. The A100's memory clock is 1593 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the GP100's is 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective). Clock speeds for the cores are similar: the A100 runs at 1275 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, while the GP100 runs at 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. The A100 has 6912 shading units, 432 texture mapping units, 160 ROPs, and 432 tensor cores. The GP100 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no tensor cores. Pixel rate is 225.6 GPixel/s for the A100 and 138.5 GPixel/s for the GP100. Texture rate is 609.1 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 19.49 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) versus 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The A100 has a TDP of 400 W with no power connectors (OAM Module form factor) and requires a suggested 800 W PSU. The GP100 has a TDP of 235 W with a single 8-pin connector (dual-slot form factor) and requires a suggested 550 W PSU. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A100 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GP100. The GP100 has display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the A100 has none. The GP100 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Architecture Differences

The A100 SXM4 80 GB is built on the Ampere architecture, while the Quadro GP100 is built on the older Pascal architecture. This generational gap explains most of the performance disparity. Ampere introduces tensor cores, which the A100 has 432 of, while Pascal has none. The A100's FP16 throughput of 77.97 TFLOPS is achieved using a 4:1 ratio, whereas the GP100's 20.69 TFLOPS uses a 2:1 ratio, reflecting a fundamentally different approach to half-precision compute.

The process node difference is significant: 7 nm for Ampere versus 16 nm for Pascal. This allows the A100 to pack 54,200 million transistors versus 15,300 million, a 3.5x increase, while maintaining a similar die size (826 mm² versus 610 mm²). The transistor density more than doubles from 25.1M to 65.6M per mm². The A100's memory technology is HBM2e, an evolution of the HBM2 used in the GP100, which enables higher effective data rates (3.2 Gbps versus 1430 Mbps) and a wider 5120-bit bus versus 4096-bit.

The A100 belongs to the Server Ampere generation, whereas the GP100 belongs to the Quadro Pascal generation. This means the A100 is designed for datacenter compute without display output, while the GP100 is a workstation card with display capabilities. The A100 supports PCIe 4.0, doubling the interconnect bandwidth of the GP100's PCIe 3.0. The GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the A100 lists no graphics API support, consistent with its compute-focused role. Release dates also differ: the A100 launched in November 2020, while the GP100 launched in September 2016.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB wins in every compute-heavy metric recorded. Its FP32 performance is 19.49 TFLOPS, which is 88% higher than the GP100's 10.34 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance is 77.97 TFLOPS, which is 277% higher than the GP100's 20.69 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 2.04 TB/s, which is 179% higher than the GP100's 732.2 GB/s. The A100's 80 GB memory capacity is five times the GP100's 16 GB, and its pixel rate of 225.6 GPixel/s is 63% higher. The A100 also has more than double the shading units (6912 versus 3584), TMUs (432 versus 224), and ROPs (160 versus 96). For any workload that stresses raw compute, memory bandwidth, or large model sizes, the A100 wins decisively.

The Quadro GP100 wins in areas related to physical integration and display functionality. It has a lower TDP of 235 W versus 400 W, making it easier to cool and power in a workstation chassis. It includes display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), which the A100 completely lacks. It uses a standard dual-slot form factor with a single 8-pin power connector, whereas the A100 uses an OAM Module with no connectors, requiring a specialized server platform. The GP100 also supports graphics APIs (DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3), while the A100 lists none. For users needing a GPU that can drive monitors or fit into a conventional workstation, the GP100 is functionally superior.

The benchmark percentile data reinforces this split. The A100's 98th percentile rank makes it a top-tier compute accelerator, competitive with the RTX 5000 Ada Generation (delta -0.5%) and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell (delta +0.9%). The GP100's 93rd percentile, while still strong, places it in a different class, closer to workstation mid-range cards like the RTX A4500 (delta -4.6%). The GP100's best case is a 2.1% lead over the CMP 40HX, whereas the A100's worst case is a 1.8% deficit to the A100 40 GB. The data shows the A100 is the choice for maximum compute, and the GP100 is the choice for display-capable workstation use with lower power demands.