NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The NVIDIA P102-100 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER occupy vastly different positions in the database, and the head-to-head measurements reflect that gulf. The RTX 4070 SUPER is the clear performance leader, winning both shared benchmarks by substantial margins, but the P102-100 remains an interesting data point due to its mining-specific heritage and Pascal-era architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparison points between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the RTX 4070 SUPER dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4070 SUPER scores 172795 against the P102-100's 49602, a delta of -71.3% for the older card. That means the RTX 4070 SUPER delivers roughly 3.5 times the OpenCL compute performance. The Vulkan gap is similarly stark: the RTX 4070 SUPER posts 205624 versus 67454, a delta of -67.2%. In percentage terms, the RTX 4070 SUPER is about 205% faster in Vulkan.

The P102-100 records zero wins across the shared benchmark suite, while the RTX 4070 SUPER takes both. However, context matters. The P102-100's average benchmark score of 58528 actually places it above the RTX 4070 SUPER's 43223 average, because the database averages across different test sets. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a much broader benchmark portfolio, including PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12 tests, PassMark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The P102-100 only has the two Geekbench entries. When comparing only the shared tests, the RTX 4070 SUPER wins outright, but the aggregate averages tell a different story because they weight different workloads.

Looking at the RTX 4070 SUPER's own benchmark suite, its strongest results come in PassMark G3D at 29995 and PassMark GPU Compute at 17108. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4627 indicates modern DirectX 12 Ultimate workload capability. The P102-100's percentile rank of 88 versus the RTX 4070 SUPER's 83 shows that the older mining card actually sits higher in the overall distribution of all GPUs, which is a consequence of the limited benchmark set it participated in rather than raw superiority.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is enormous. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses AD104 on a 5 nm process. Transistor counts reflect the generational leap: the P102-100 packs 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². The RTX 4070 SUPER crams 35,800 million transistors into just 294 mm², achieving 121.8M per mm². That is nearly five times the density, a direct result of the process node shrink.

The P102-100 belongs to the Pascal architecture, which predates dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores entirely. Its 3200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs are organized in a classic rasterization-focused design. The RTX 4070 SUPER, based on Ada Lovelace, brings 7168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, plus 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. The FP32 compute figures illustrate the scale: the P102-100 delivers 10.77 TFLOPS, while the RTX 4070 SUPER reaches 35.48 TFLOPS. FP16 is even more lopsided: the P102-100 manages 168.3 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the RTX 4070 SUPER delivers 35.48 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning it handles half-precision at full rate.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, providing 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, yet achieves higher bandwidth at 504.2 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. The effective memory speed tells the story: 11 Gbps on the P102-100 versus 21 Gbps on the RTX 4070 SUPER. Pixel and texture rates follow suit. The P102-100 outputs 134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4070 SUPER reaches 198.0 GPixel/s and 554.4 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ as well, with the P102-100 boosting to 1683 MHz and the RTX 4070 SUPER boosting to 2475 MHz. The base clocks are 1582 MHz and 1980 MHz respectively. Power draw is counterintuitive: the older, slower card consumes 250 W TDP, while the newer, faster card draws only 220 W. The P102-100 requires two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU, whereas the RTX 4070 SUPER uses a single 16-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with identical 267 mm lengths, but the RTX 4070 SUPER is a fully featured display adapter with HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the P102-100 has no display outputs at all.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins every shared benchmark and offers capabilities the P102-100 simply lacks. For any workload that benefits from modern features, such as DirectX 12 Ultimate support, ray tracing via 56 RT cores, or tensor core acceleration, the RTX 4070 SUPER is the only viable option. Its 12 GB memory capacity and higher bandwidth make it suitable for larger datasets and higher resolution textures. The 1:1 FP16 ratio also matters for compute tasks that use half precision, as the P102-100's 1:64 ratio makes FP16 effectively unusable for serious work.

The P102-100's advantages are narrower. Its pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 336.6 GTexel/s, while lower than the RTX 4070 SUPER, are still respectable for a Pascal card. Its 320-bit memory bus provides more physical lanes, which can help in certain bandwidth-bound scenarios. The P102-100 also draws its performance from a simpler architecture with fewer moving parts, which historically has meant better driver stability in legacy applications. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, however, is a severe bottleneck, especially compared to the RTX 4070 SUPER's PCIe 4.0 x16 connection. That interface difference alone could negate the P102-100's advantages in real-world systems.

For gaming, the RTX 4070 SUPER is the clear choice, but the P102-100 has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor at all. Its purpose was mining, and the database reflects that with its "Mining GPUs" generation label. The RTX 4070 SUPER, by contrast, is a full consumer graphics card with modern API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the P102-100's DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the shared benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. It scores 172795 in OpenCL versus 49602 for the P102-100, a 71.3% delta in favor of the newer card. In Vulkan, it scores 205624 versus 67454, a 67.2% delta.

Q: Why does the P102-100 have a higher average benchmark score than the RTX 4070 SUPER?

A: The P102-100's average score is 58528, while the RTX 4070 SUPER averages 43223. This discrepancy exists because the database averages different test sets. The P102-100 only participated in two Geekbench tests, both of which returned relatively high scores, while the RTX 4070 SUPER has ten benchmark results including PassMark tests that pull its average down.

Q: Does the P102-100 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The P102-100 is based on the Pascal architecture and has no RT cores or tensor cores. The RTX 4070 SUPER, based on Ada Lovelace, includes 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of each card?

A: The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4070 SUPER has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, achieving higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus due to 21 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Can the P102-100 be used for display output?

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs. The RTX 4070 SUPER includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The P102-100 has a 250 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a 600 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a 220 W TDP, uses one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The P102-100 uses a 16 nm process, while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are 11,800 million versus 35,800 million, and die sizes are 471 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density jumps from 25.1M per mm² to 121.8M per mm². Base clocks are 1582 MHz versus 1980 MHz, boost clocks are 1683 MHz versus 2475 MHz, and memory clocks are 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) versus 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 5 GB versus 12 GB, type is GDDR5X versus GDDR6X, bus width is 320 bit versus 192 bit, and bandwidth is 440.3 GB/s versus 504.2 GB/s. Shading units are 3200 versus 7168, TMUs are 200 versus 224, and ROPs are identical at 80. The RTX 4070 SUPER adds 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, which the P102-100 lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 134.6 GPixel/s versus 198.0 GPixel/s, texture rate is 336.6 GTexel/s versus 554.4 GTexel/s, FP32 is 10.77 TFLOPS versus 35.48 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) versus 35.48 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 250 W versus 220 W, power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus 1x 16-pin, suggested PSU is 600 W versus 550 W, and bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RTX 4070 SUPER has dimensions of 267 mm length, 112 mm height, and 42 mm width, while the P102-100 lists only 267 mm length. Release dates are 2018-02-11 versus 2024-01-16. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated once. The P102-100 has no launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the RTX 4070 SUPER is the superior product for essentially any use case that requires display output, modern API support, or high compute throughput. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 71.3% and 67.2%, offers more than double the shading units, triples the FP32 compute, and adds dedicated RT and tensor cores. Its 12 GB memory capacity and higher bandwidth make it better suited for modern workloads, and its lower TDP of 220 W versus 250 W means it achieves all of this while drawing less power.

The P102-100 is a specialized artifact of the mining era. Its lack of display outputs eliminates it from consideration for gaming or general desktop use. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface severely limits data transfer speeds, and its 5 GB memory capacity is small by modern standards. Its higher average benchmark score of 58528 versus 43223 is a statistical artifact of limited test participation, not a sign of real-world superiority. The percentile ranks of 88 versus 83 similarly reflect the different benchmark portfolios.

For anyone building a system today, the RTX 4070 SUPER is the only rational choice between these two. It delivers modern features, higher performance, better efficiency, and full display connectivity. The P102-100 remains an interesting historical data point for those studying mining-specific hardware, but the benchmark results offer no scenario where it represents a better pick. Its 250 W TDP, dual 8-pin connectors, and 600 W PSU recommendation are all worse than the RTX 4070 SUPER's corresponding figures, and its nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT with a 0.2% delta, show that it sits in a completely different performance class than the Ada Lovelace card.