NVIDIA GeForce MX550 vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 has an average benchmark score of 26421, while the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23249. The MX550 sits 13.6% higher in average score and ranks at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the P106-100's 68th percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 35951 against the MX550's 20372. This represents a 43.3% lead for the P106-100.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap similar to the OpenCL gap?

A: No, the Vulkan results are much closer. The P106-100 scores 32897 versus the MX550's 32469, a margin of only 1.3%.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The MX550 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The P106-100 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher shading unit and texture unit counts?

A: The P106-100 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The MX550 has 1024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX550 is rated at 25 W TDP, while the P106-100 is rated at 120 W TDP. The P106-100 also requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a 1x 6-pin power connector, whereas the MX550 uses no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different eras of the company's product stack. The MX550 uses the TU117SB chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The P106-100 uses the GP106 chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is modest, but the architectural generations are distinct, which shows up in feature support and efficiency.

Transistor counts are similar in absolute terms: the MX550 packs 4,700 million transistors, while the P106-100 contains 4,400 million. Both dies measure exactly 200 mm², which results in a slightly higher transistor density for the MX550 at 23.5M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm² for the P106-100. The MX550 achieves its higher density on the newer 12 nm node.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The MX550 has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1320 MHz. The P106-100 runs much higher clocks, with a base of 1506 MHz and a boost of 1709 MHz. This clock advantage, combined with a larger core configuration, drives much of the P106-100's higher theoretical throughput.

Compute configuration is where the architectures diverge most clearly. The MX550 has 1024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P106-100 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The P106-100's TMU count is 2.5 times that of the MX550, and its ROP count is three times higher. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The memory subsystems are entirely different in scope. The MX550 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with memory running at 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P106-100 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with memory at 2002 MHz and 8 Gbps effective, yielding 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The P106-100 has exactly twice the memory bandwidth of the MX550.

The P106-100 belongs to the "Mining GPUs" generation and has no display outputs, which reflects its intended use case. The MX550 is an integrated-class part (IGP slot width) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it was designed for laptops. The P106-100 is a dual-slot card, 250 mm long, with a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the MX550 uses no power connectors at all.

FP16 processing reveals another architectural gap. The MX550 delivers 2.703 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The P106-100 delivers only 68.36 GFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. The MX550's Turing architecture handles FP16 far more efficiently, while the P106-100's Pascal design treats it as a minor capability.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator in the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains two tests, and the P106-100 wins both. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a massive gap. The P106-100 scores 35951, while the MX550 scores 20372. That is a 43.3% difference in favor of the P106-100. This result aligns with the raw specification differences: the P106-100 has more shading units, higher clocks, double the memory bandwidth, and triple the ROP count.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is nearly a tie. The P106-100 scores 32897, and the MX550 scores 32469. The delta is only 1.3% in favor of the P106-100. This is a striking contrast to the OpenCL result. Despite the P106-100's large advantages in raw compute resources and memory bandwidth, the Vulkan test shows near parity. The MX550's newer Turing architecture and its 1:1 FP16 ratio may help it close the gap in API-bound workloads, though the recorded data does not isolate the cause.

The average benchmark score field tells a different story than either individual test. The MX550's average is 26421, which is higher than the P106-100's 23249. That is because the MX550's two recorded benchmark scores (20372 OpenCL and 32469 Vulkan) average higher than the P106-100's three recorded scores (899 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 35951 OpenCL, and 32897 Vulkan). The 3DMark result for the P106-100 is substantially lower and drags down its average.

The MX550's nearest rivals in the database, by average score, are the AMD Radeon 860M at 26401 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 at 26331 (0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary at 26553 (0.5% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 at 26683 (1% higher). The MX550 sits in a tight cluster around the 26400 mark.

The P106-100's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23250 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276 (0.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 at 23315 (0.3% higher). The P106-100's average score is essentially identical to the Radeon Pro Vega 16.

The win count in the head-to-head data is 0 for the MX550 and 2 for the P106-100, but the average score metric favors the MX550. This split means the choice between the two depends heavily on which workload is being considered.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The MX550 uses the TU117SB chip on Turing architecture at 12 nm, while the P106-100 uses the GP106 chip on Pascal architecture at 16 nm. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 4,400 million. Die size is identical at 200 mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MX550 runs at 1065 MHz base and 1320 MHz boost. The P106-100 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MX550 uses 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the P106-100 uses 2002 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is 2 GB for the MX550 versus 6 GB for the P106-100. Memory type is GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bus width is 64-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s.

Core counts: 1024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the MX550; 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs on the P106-100.

Pixel rate is 21.12 GPixel/s for the MX550 versus 82.03 GPixel/s for the P106-100. Texture rate is 42.24 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.703 TFLOPS versus 4.375 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 2.703 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The MX550 has a 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The P106-100 has a 120 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a length of 250 mm. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the MX550 versus PCIe 1.0 x16 for the P106-100. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the MX550 and absent entirely for the P106-100.

Release dates differ by over four years: the MX550 was released on 2021-12-16, and the P106-100 on 2017-06-18. Both are end-of-life. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The P106-100 wins in raw compute throughput across nearly every measured specification. It has a 62% higher FP32 figure (4.375 TFLOPS versus 2.703 TFLOPS), double the memory bandwidth (192.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), triple the ROP count, and 2.5 times the TMU count. Its OpenCL score is 43.3% higher than the MX550. For workloads that scale with shader count, texture throughput, and memory bandwidth, the P106-100 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The MX550 wins in efficiency and architectural modernity. Its 25 W TDP is one-fifth of the P106-100's 120 W. It requires no power connector and has no suggested PSU requirement. Its FP16 performance is dramatically better at 1:1 ratio, delivering 2.703 TFLOPS compared to the P106-100's 68.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. In the Vulkan benchmark, the MX550 nearly matches the P106-100 despite its smaller core configuration, trailing by only 1.3%. Its average benchmark score is 13.6% higher than the P106-100's, driven by the P106-100's weak 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 899.

The MX550 also has display outputs, making it usable in portable devices, while the P106-100 has no display outputs at all and is classified under "Mining GPUs." The MX550 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is a newer standard than the P106-100's PCIe 1.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data presents two different products with two different intended purposes. The NVIDIA P106-100 is the stronger compute performer in head-to-head OpenCL testing, with a 43.3% lead over the MX550. It also dominates in memory bandwidth, texture rate, pixel rate, and raw FP32 throughput. Applications that can fully utilize its 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 192-bit memory bus will favor the P106-100.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 is the better-rounded product in the database's average score metric, posting a 26421 average against the P106-100's 23249. Its Vulkan score of 32469 is nearly identical to the P106-100's 32897, showing that the architecture can compete in modern API workloads despite having fewer resources. Its 25 W power envelope, lack of power connectors, and display output support make it suitable for portable systems.

Buyers who need maximum compute throughput and memory bandwidth should choose the P106-100. Buyers who need a low-power GPU with display output support and competitive average benchmark scores should choose the MX550. The 1.3% Vulkan gap is small enough that most users would not notice a difference in that workload, while the 43.3% OpenCL gap is large enough to be decisive for compute-oriented tasks. The MX550's higher percentile ranking (72 versus 68) and higher average score suggest it is the safer general-purpose pick, but the P106-100's specification sheet points to a clear advantage in GPU-bound compute scenarios.