NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a clear and unambiguous outcome: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER dominates the NVIDIA P102-100 in every measured test. Across the two shared benchmarks, the RTX 4080 SUPER wins both, leaving the P102-100 with zero wins. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 219,065 for the RTX 4080 SUPER is 77.4% higher than the P102-100’s 49,602, while the Vulkan result of 260,075 versus 67,454 represents a 74.1% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they are generational gaps.

The P102-100, however, occupies a distinct niche. Its 88th percentile ranking among all GPUs, based on an average benchmark score of 58,528, places it in the upper echelon of legacy hardware. It sits within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM and just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT. For users constrained to older systems or mining-specific workloads, the P102-100 remains a viable compute device. But for any modern gaming, rendering, or general-purpose GPU task, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only rational choice from the data.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 4080 SUPER is for anyone who needs current-generation performance, ray tracing, or broad software compatibility. The P102-100 is for niche users who require a Pascal-generation compute card with no display outputs and can accept its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different eras of NVIDIA design. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4080 SUPER, by contrast, uses the AD103 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. It crams 45,900 million transistors into a smaller 379 mm² die, achieving a density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. That is a 4.8-fold improvement in density, explaining how the newer card fits over four times the transistors into a smaller physical area.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, achieving 736.3 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the newer memory type and higher effective clock (23 Gbps versus 11 Gbps) produce a 67% bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The newer card also includes 80 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the P102-100. The FP32 throughput is 52.22 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 SUPER versus 10.77 TFLOPS for the P102-100. The FP16 gap is even more extreme: 52.22 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio for Ada versus a 1:64 ratio for Pascal.

The bus interface differs as well. The P102-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited connection that will bottleneck data transfer in most systems. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16, offering vastly greater bandwidth. The P102-100 has no display outputs, making it unusable for video output, while the RTX 4080 SUPER provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks paint a consistent picture of total superiority for the RTX 4080 SUPER. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065 against the P102-100’s 49,602. The delta is -77.4% from the perspective of the P102-100, meaning the older card achieves less than a quarter of the newer card’s score. This test typically stresses raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency — all areas where the Ada Lovelace architecture excels.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is slightly narrower but still decisive. The RTX 4080 SUPER posts 260,075, while the P102-100 manages 67,454. The delta is -74.1%. Vulkan workloads often benefit from modern hardware features like asynchronous compute and better memory management, which the Pascal architecture lacks. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s 80 ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores likely contribute to its superior Vulkan performance, even in non-ray-traced workloads.

These results are consistent with the average benchmark scores. The P102-100 has an average score of 58,528 across all its benchmarks, while the RTX 4080 SUPER averages 54,209. This appears counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but the averages include different benchmark suites. The P102-100’s benchmarks are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, while the RTX 4080 SUPER includes additional tests like Passmark G3D (34,245) and Passmark GPU Compute (19,822). The RTX 4080 SUPER’s percentile ranking of 86 versus the P102-100’s 88 reflects this broader test mix, not a genuine performance equivalence.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two cards differ are numerous and fundamental.

| Specification | P102-100 | RTX 4080 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1582 MHz | 2295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 2550 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1376 MHz / 11 Gbps | 1438 MHz / 23 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus | 320 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 736.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3200 | 10240 |

| TMUs | 200 | 320 |

| ROPs | 80 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 80 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 320 |

| Pixel Rate | 134.6 GPixel/s | 285.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.6 GTexel/s | 816.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.77 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) | 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 320 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 in) | 310 mm (12.2 in) x 140 mm (5.5 in) x 61 mm (2.4 in) |

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2024-01-30 |

The RTX 4080 SUPER also carries a launch MSRP of 999 USD, which may be stated once for reference. The P102-100 has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the P102-100’s 440.3 GB/s. The newer card achieves this with a narrower 256-bit bus by using faster GDDR6X memory at 23 Gbps effective, versus the P102-100’s GDDR5X at 11 Gbps.

Q: Does the P102-100 support ray tracing?

A: No. The P102-100 has no ray tracing cores listed. The RTX 4080 SUPER includes 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads.

Q: What is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065 versus the P102-100’s 49,602, a difference of 77.4% in favor of the newer card. The P102-100 achieves less than a quarter of the RTX 4080 SUPER’s score.

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

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs. The RTX 4080 SUPER provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, making it suitable for multi-monitor setups.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter, nearly five times the P102-100’s 25.1 million. This is enabled by the 5 nm process versus the 16 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The P102-100 ranks at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX 4080 SUPER ranks at the 86th percentile. This is due to different benchmark suites; the P102-100’s limited tests skew its average upward relative to the RTX 4080 SUPER’s broader test set.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 SUPER wins in every head-to-head benchmark, so its strengths are defined by the scope of its victories. It is the clear choice for any workload involving modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or high-resolution textures. Its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, while its 52.22 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance handle compute-heavy tasks like AI inference or scientific simulation. The inclusion of tensor cores and RT cores opens up features the P102-100 cannot access at all. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensures data transfers do not bottleneck the GPU, and the triple-slot cooler with a 320 W TDP indicates sustained performance under load.

The P102-100 wins only in the narrow sense of occupying a specific legacy niche. Its 88th percentile ranking and average score of 58,528 show it remains competitive with cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (delta -0.2%). For users running software that supports Pascal’s feature set and does not require display output, the P102-100 can still deliver respectable compute performance. Its 250 W TDP is lower than the RTX 4080 SUPER’s 320 W, and its dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors may fit into older systems more easily than the RTX 4080 SUPER’s triple-slot, 16-pin design. The 267 mm length is shorter than the RTX 4080 SUPER’s 310 mm, which could matter for compact chassis.

However, the P102-100’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a severe limitation for any data-intensive task, and its lack of display outputs excludes it from standard desktop use. The data shows no scenario where the P102-100 outperforms the RTX 4080 SUPER in raw compute. The RTX 4080 SUPER is the universal choice for anyone who can accommodate its power and size requirements. The P102-100 is a relic for specialized compute environments where its Pascal-level performance and mining-oriented design are sufficient.