NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA P106-100 clearly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 in both recorded tests, with the GTX 1630 trailing by roughly 30% in OpenCL and 28% in Vulkan. While the GTX 1630 holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (70th vs. 68th), the P106-100 delivers decisively higher raw compute scores, making it the stronger performer for compute-oriented workloads despite its mining-focused heritage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The P106-100 dominates the GeForce GTX 1630 across both shared benchmark tests, but the margin varies by API. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P106-100 scores 35,951 against the GTX 1630's 24,858, a gap of 30.9% in favor of the Pascal card. This is a substantial lead, reflecting the P106-100's much larger execution resource pool: 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs versus the GTX 1630's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern, though the delta narrows slightly. The P106-100 posts 32,897 while the GTX 1630 manages 23,695, yielding a 28% advantage for the mining card. This consistent 28–31% lead across two different graphics APIs suggests the P106-100's advantage is not API-specific but rather a fundamental throughput advantage driven by its raw architecture.

It is importantly the GTX 1630's average benchmark score of 24,277 places it within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24,236) and 0.4% of the RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170), while sitting 0.7% behind the Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442). The P106-100's average of 23,249 is essentially tied with the Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250, 0% delta) and within 0.1% of the Radeon RX 6600M (23,273). Despite the P106-100 winning the head-to-head, its average score places it in a lower performance tier than the GTX 1630's nearest rivals suggest for that card.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the P106-100 is the superior performer in raw compute benchmarks, beating the GTX 1630 by roughly 30% in OpenCL and 28% in Vulkan. If the task is purely about maximizing compute scores in these APIs, the P106-100 is the clear choice.

However, the P106-100 has zero display outputs, meaning it cannot drive a monitor directly. The GTX 1630, by contrast, includes 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For any use case requiring a visual output — gaming on a screen, desktop use, or content creation with a display — the GTX 1630 is the only viable option of the two.

The GTX 1630 also wins on architectural modernity. It uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, while the P106-100 relies on the older Pascal architecture on a 16 nm node. The GTX 1630 supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (3.656 TFLOPS) versus the P106-100's severely limited FP16 (68.36 GFLOPS at 1:64), which matters for workloads that leverage half-precision math.

In short: choose the P106-100 if you need raw compute and can work around the lack of display outputs; choose the GTX 1630 if you need a functional graphics card with display connectivity, modern architecture features, and a much lower power draw.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA P106-100 wins on raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 35,951 is 30.9% higher than the GTX 1630's 24,858, and its Vulkan score of 32,897 beats the GTX 1630's 23,695 by 28%. This advantage stems from its significantly larger shader array (1,280 vs. 512), higher memory bandwidth (192.2 GB/s vs. 96.00 GB/s), and greater texture and pixel throughput (136.7 GTexel/s and 82.03 GPixel/s vs. 57.12 GTexel/s and 28.56 GPixel/s). It also offers 6 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, which can help with larger datasets.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins on usability and efficiency. It provides display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) where the P106-100 has none. It draws 75 W versus 120 W, requires no power connectors (the P106-100 needs a 6-pin), and has a lower suggested PSU rating of 250 W versus 300 W. The GTX 1630 is also a single-slot card at 145 mm length, while the P106-100 is a dual-slot card at 250 mm, making the GTX 1630 far easier to fit in compact systems.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 1630 has an average benchmark score of 24,277, which is higher than the P106-100's 23,249. However, the P106-100 wins both individual head-to-head tests.

Q: How much faster is the P106-100 in OpenCL?

A: The P106-100 scores 35,951 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 30.9% higher than the GTX 1630's 24,858.

Q: Does the P106-100 support display outputs?

A: No. The P106-100 lists "No outputs" for display connections, while the GTX 1630 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The P106-100 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The P106-100 has 1,280 shading units, compared to the GTX 1630's 512 shading units. The P106-100 also has 80 TMUs and 48 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the GTX 1630.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 1630 has a TDP of 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip built on the Turing architecture at TSMC's 12 nm process, while the P106-100 uses the GP106 chip on the older Pascal architecture at 16 nm. Both are manufactured by TSMC, with nearly identical die sizes (200 mm² each) and transistor counts (4,700 million for TU117 vs. 4,400 million for GP106), giving the GTX 1630 a slightly higher transistor density of 23.5M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm².

The Turing architecture in the GTX 1630 supports FP16 at a 2:1 rate, delivering 3.656 TFLOPS, whereas the Pascal-based P106-100 handles FP16 at a 1:64 rate, yielding only 68.36 GFLOPS. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature support is identical, but the underlying compute efficiency for half-precision workloads differs dramatically.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The GTX 1630 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 1500 MHz memory clock (12 Gbps effective), while the P106-100 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 2002 MHz memory clock (8 Gbps effective). The wider bus on the P106-100 doubles its bandwidth to 192.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The P106-100 also has far higher pixel and texture rates: 82.03 GPixel/s and 136.7 GTexel/s versus the GTX 1630's 28.56 GPixel/s and 57.12 GTexel/s.

The P106-100's PCIe interface is listed as PCIe 1.0 x16, while the GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which may impact data transfer speeds despite the P106-100's compute advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 | NVIDIA P106-100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |

| Process node | 12 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 4,400 million |

| Transistor density | 23.5M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1740 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1785 MHz | 1709 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 512 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 32 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 28.56 GPixel/s | 82.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 57.12 GTexel/s | 136.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 1.828 TFLOPS | 4.375 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) | 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 75 W | 120 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | 250 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Release date | 2022-06-27 | 2017-06-18 |