NVIDIA GB10 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA GB10 and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is decisively one-sided in raw compute performance. The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GB10 scores 120,137 against the Quadro GP100’s 87,445. That is a 37.4% advantage for the GB10, a substantial gap that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite both being professional-grade NVIDIA parts.

To put that OpenCL delta in context, look at where each card sits relative to its nearest rivals. The GB10’s average benchmark score is 117,393, which lands it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, averages 117,088 — just 0.3% behind the GB10. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 sits 1.3% ahead of the GB10 with an average of 118,976, while the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB trails by 2.6% at 114,395. So the GB10 is essentially trading blows with modern workstation-class cards, edging out some and narrowly losing to others.

The Quadro GP100, meanwhile, posts an average benchmark score of 87,445, which still earns it a 93rd percentile ranking — not far off the GB10’s 95th percentile. But its rival set tells a different story. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 87,108, a mere 0.4% behind the GP100. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is 2.1% slower at 85,637. However, the RTX A4500 Mobile and RTX A4500 both beat the GP100 decisively, by 4% and 4.6% respectively. The GP100 is holding its own against mid-range modern cards, but it is clearly a step below the performance class the GB10 occupies.

The single-benchmark comparison is thin, but the delta is consistent with the architectural gulf between the two. The GB10’s FP32 throughput is 29.71 TFLOPS, nearly three times the Quadro GP100’s 10.34 TFLOPS. Even in FP16, where the GP100’s 2:1 ratio gives it an advantage over its own FP32 rate, the GB10’s 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1) still exceeds the GP100’s 20.69 TFLOPS. That is a fundamental compute advantage that no software optimization can overcome.

FAQ

Q: Is the NVIDIA GB10 faster than the Quadro GP100 in every measured benchmark?

A: Yes. The only directly comparable test in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GB10 scores 120,137 versus the GP100’s 87,445 — a 37.4% advantage. The GB10 also holds the wins count at 1 to 0.

Q: How does the GB10 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The GB10’s average score of 117,393 puts it 0.3% ahead of the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 2.6% ahead of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 3% ahead of the RTX A5500 Mobile. It trails the Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.3%.

Q: What is the Quadro GP100’s standing against modern GPUs given its age?

A: Despite being an older Pascal-generation card, the GP100’s average score of 87,445 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. It narrowly beats the Radeon PRO W7600 by 0.4% and the CMP 40HX by 2.1%, but loses to the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4% and the RTX A4500 by 4.6%.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro GP100 has a significant bandwidth advantage. It uses HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and delivers 732.2 GB/s. The GB10 uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. Note that the GB10 compensates with far greater memory capacity — 128 GB versus 16 GB.

Q: Does the GB10 support modern graphics APIs?

A: The GB10 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A in the data. The Quadro GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. This suggests the GB10 is not intended for traditional graphics workloads in the same way.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GB10 has a 140 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro GP100 has a 235 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and needs a 550 W PSU. The GB10 is far more power-efficient.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, spanning multiple generations of NVIDIA design philosophy. The GB10 is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with a GB20B chip, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Quadro GP100 uses the Pascal architecture with a GP100 chip on a 16 nm TSMC process. That process-node difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap.

The die sizes tell an interesting story. The GP100 has a massive 610 mm² die with 15,300 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². The GB10’s die is smaller at 382 mm², and its transistor count is listed as unknown in the data. However, the GB10’s smaller die on a much more advanced node achieves significantly higher clock speeds — 1665 MHz base and 2418 MHz boost versus the GP100’s 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost.

Compute resources differ sharply. The GB10 packs 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 384 tensor cores. The GP100 has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs — but no RT cores and no tensor cores at all. The GB10’s 384 tensor cores are critical for AI and machine learning workloads, a feature class entirely absent from the Pascal-generation GP100.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. The GP100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a massive 4096-bit bus, achieving 732.2 GB/s. The GB10’s bandwidth is lower, but its capacity is eight times larger. For workloads that fit within 16 GB, the GP100’s bandwidth helps; for anything larger, only the GB10 can handle it.

The GP100 supports a full modern graphics API stack — DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GB10 lists all of these as N/A, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics rendering. The GB10 also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the GP100 has a 2:1 ratio where FP16 runs twice as fast as FP32. For pure FP32 compute, the GB10’s 29.71 TFLOPS dwarfs the GP100’s 10.34 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification that matters. Process node: 5 nm for the GB10 versus 16 nm for the GP100. Die size: 382 mm² versus 610 mm². Transistor density: unknown for the GB10 versus 25.1M per mm² for the GP100. Base clock: 1665 MHz versus 1304 MHz. Boost clock: 2418 MHz versus 1443 MHz. Memory size: 128 GB versus 16 GB. Memory type: LPDDR5X versus HBM2. Memory bus: 256-bit versus 4096-bit. Memory bandwidth: 273.2 GB/s versus 732.2 GB/s.

Shader resources: 6,144 shading units versus 3,584. TMUs: 384 versus 224. ROPs: 48 versus 96. RT cores: 48 versus none. Tensor cores: 384 versus none. FP32 performance: 29.71 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS. FP16 performance: 29.71 TFLOPS versus 20.69 TFLOPS. Pixel rate: 116.1 GPixel/s versus 138.5 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 928.5 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs differ just as much. TDP: 140 W versus 235 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Length: 150 mm versus 267 mm. Height: 51 mm versus 111 mm.

The GB10 is a current, active product with a release date of October 2025. The GP100 is end-of-life, released in September 2016. The GB10’s generation is listed as Server Blackwell, while the GP100 belongs to Quadro Pascal. The GB10 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD; the GP100 has no listed launch MSRP. The GB10’s predecessor is Server Hopper and successor is Server Rubin; the GP100’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and successor is Quadro Volta.

The Verdict

The data makes this a straightforward call for most workloads. The NVIDIA GB10 is the faster card by a wide margin in the only directly comparable benchmark, delivering a 37.4% higher OpenCL score than the Quadro GP100. It also offers dramatically higher FP32 and FP16 compute, more than double the shading units, and modern tensor cores that the GP100 lacks entirely.

However, the Quadro GP100 is not without its own merits. Its 732.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly three times that of the GB10, and its 96 ROPs give it a higher pixel rate (138.5 GPixel/s versus 116.1 GPixel/s). It supports full DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 APIs, whereas the GB10 lists all graphics APIs as N/A. If you need to drive multiple high-resolution displays with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, the GP100’s connectivity is far richer.

Yet the GB10’s advantages are more aligned with modern compute demands. Its 128 GB of memory is an order of magnitude larger than the GP100’s 16 GB. Its tensor cores enable AI workloads that the GP100 cannot accelerate at all. Its 140 W TDP with no power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU makes it far easier to integrate into dense systems. The GP100’s 235 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement demand more infrastructure.

The production status is telling: the GB10 is active, while the GP100 is end-of-life. The GB10 also sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs versus the GP100’s 93rd. For any new deployment, the GB10 is the obvious choice unless the specific need for the GP100’s memory bandwidth or graphics API support is paramount.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GB10 wins in raw compute throughput, modern AI acceleration, memory capacity, power efficiency, and overall benchmark performance. Its 29.71 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, 384 tensor cores, and 128 GB of memory make it the pick for compute-heavy workloads such as large language model inference, scientific simulation, and any task that requires holding massive datasets close to the processor. Its 37.4% OpenCL lead over the GP100, combined with a 95th-percentile standing, confirms it as the higher-performance part in general-purpose compute.

The Quadro GP100 wins in memory bandwidth, rasterization throughput, and display connectivity. Its 732.2 GB/s bandwidth is a 168% advantage over the GB10’s 273.2 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound workloads that fit within 16 GB. Its 138.5 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the GB10’s 116.1 GPixel/s, and its 96 ROPs versus 48 suggests better fill-rate performance in traditional graphics rendering. The GP100’s full support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, plus its 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, make it the only option of the two for conventional GPU-accelerated graphics workstations with multiple monitors.

The GB10 is also the clear winner in power efficiency and physical integration. It draws 140 W versus 235 W, needs no auxiliary power connectors, requires a 300 W PSU versus 550 W, and occupies an IGP slot footprint at 150 mm long versus the GP100’s 267 mm dual-slot design. For dense server environments or compact builds, that is a decisive practical advantage.

In short, choose the GB10 for compute, AI, and modern workloads with large memory footprints. Choose the Quadro GP100 only if you specifically need its memory bandwidth, graphics API compatibility, or multi-display output capabilities — and can accept its end-of-life status and higher power demands.