NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a starkly one-sided contest. Across the two shared tests, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 wins every round, and the margins are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the P102-100's 49,602. That is a delta of -76.9% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RTX 4080 delivers roughly 4.3 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The Vulkan test tells the same story. The RTX 4080 posts 263,779 points while the P102-100 manages 67,454. The -74.4% delta here indicates the RTX 4080 is about 3.9 times faster. These are not subtle differences; they are generational leaps.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the P102-100's average benchmark score of 58,528 places it at the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO V710, sits at 58,657, a mere -0.2% difference, which is effectively a statistical tie. The AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT is also close at 58,392, just 0.2% behind. This clustering suggests the P102-100 is a solid performer within its own cohort, but that cohort is far below the RTX 4080's territory. The RTX 4080's average score of 54,247 is peculiar because it is lower than its individual Geekbench scores, dragged down by Passmark results. Yet even with that, its nearest rivals are the RTX 4080 SUPER at 54,209 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X at 54,828 (RTX 4080 is 1.1% behind). The RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile, two points lower than the P102-100, which reflects different benchmark distributions rather than comparable performance.

The head-to-head deltas are the clearest evidence. When directly compared, the RTX 4080 wins both tests. The P102-100 wins zero. This is not a close contest where architectural quirks tip the scales in different directions; it is a complete sweep. The RTX 4080's Vulkan score of 263,779 is the highest single result in either card's benchmark suite, while the P102-100's best showing is its 67,454 Vulkan score, which is still 74.4% lower than the RTX 4080's worst Geekbench OpenCL result. In absolute terms, the RTX 4080's OpenCL score alone exceeds the P102-100's combined benchmark average by a factor of 3.7. The data leaves no room for ambiguity about which GPU is faster.

Where Each One Wins

The P102-100 has no benchmark wins in this dataset. It loses both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan by margins exceeding 74%. The only context where it appears competitive is against its own nearest rivals. Its average score of 58,528 is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT's 58,392 and 0.5% higher than the Intel Arc A570M's 58,239. Against the AMD Radeon PRO V710, the P102-100 is essentially tied at -0.2%. So, in its own performance tier, the P102-100 is a mid-pack contender. It beats some peers by fractions of a percent, but that is a hollow victory compared to the 76.9% deficit it faces against the RTX 4080.

The RTX 4080 wins every head-to-head test, but its advantages are not uniform. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 76.9% ahead; in Vulkan, it is 74.4% ahead. The slightly smaller Vulkan delta suggests the RTX 4080's advantage narrows marginally in that API, but the absolute scores remain overwhelmingly in its favor. The RTX 4080 also has a broader benchmark suite, including Passmark tests where it scores 34,457 in G3D, 20,671 in GPU compute, and 1,239 in G2D. The P102-100 has no Passmark results in the data, so no direct comparison is possible there. For use cases like DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads, the RTX 4080's Passmark scores of 370, 204, 314, and 132 respectively provide a reference point, but the P102-100 lacks equivalent data.

From a use-case perspective, the RTX 4080 is the clear choice for any workload that stresses Vulkan or OpenCL compute. The P102-100, being a mining GPU with no display outputs, has no role in graphics rendering or gaming. Its strengths, if any, would lie in compute tasks, but the benchmark data shows it is severely outclassed there as well. The RTX 4080's 16 GB of GDDR6X memory versus the P102-100's 5 GB of GDDR5X also suggests the newer card can handle larger datasets. The P102-100's 320-bit bus width gives it a 440.3 GB/s bandwidth, but the RTX 4080's 256-bit bus with faster 22.4 Gbps effective memory achieves 716.8 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, the RTX 4080 has a 62.8% bandwidth advantage. The P102-100 wins nothing in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC process. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². The RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. It crams 45,900 million transistors into a smaller 379 mm² die, achieving a density of 121.1M per mm². This is a 4.8x increase in density, which is the fundamental driver of the performance gap.

The compute resources differ massively. The P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output pipelines. The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That is 3.0x more shaders, 1.5x more TMUs, and 1.4x more ROPs. The RTX 4080 also introduces hardware that the P102-100 lacks entirely: 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. These enable features like DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX 4080's pixel rate of 280.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 761.5 GTexel/s dwarf the P102-100's 134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 throughput tells the story: 48.74 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 versus 10.77 TFLOPS for the P102-100, a 4.5x gap. The FP16 numbers are even more lopsided, with the RTX 4080 hitting 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) while the P102-100 manages just 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). That is a 289x difference in half-precision compute, though the P102-100's low FP16 rate is typical of mining-focused cards.

Memory architectures also diverge. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, while the RTX 4080 uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 4080's memory runs at 22.4 Gbps effective versus 11 Gbps for the P102-100, which more than compensates for the narrower bus. Clock speeds favor the RTX 4080 as well: 2,205 MHz base and 2,505 MHz boost versus 1,582 MHz base and 1,683 MHz boost. The RTX 4080 also has a much more capable bus interface, PCIe 4.0 x16, compared to the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4, which is a severe bottleneck for data transfer. The P102-100 has no display outputs, confirming its mining-only purpose, while the RTX 4080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Power requirements reflect the performance gap: the RTX 4080 draws 320 W versus 250 W for the P102-100, and it uses a 1x 16-pin connector rather than 2x 8-pin. Physical dimensions differ too, with the RTX 4080 being longer at 310 mm versus 267 mm, and thicker at triple-slot versus dual-slot.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is superior to the NVIDIA P102-100 in every measurable benchmark category available. It wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of -76.9% and -74.4% from the P102-100's perspective. The RTX 4080 offers 4.5x the FP32 throughput, 3.0x the shading units, and 62.8% more memory bandwidth. It has ray tracing and tensor cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and comes with 16 GB of memory versus 5 GB. The P102-100's only "wins" are against its own nearest rivals, where it edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT by 0.2% and the Intel Arc A570M by 0.5%. Those are negligible margins. Anyone choosing between these two cards for compute workloads should pick the RTX 4080 without hesitation. The P102-100, with its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface and no display outputs, is a relic from the mining era that cannot compete with a modern Ada Lovelace part.

For users with legacy compute tasks that specifically require Pascal architecture quirks, the P102-100 might have niche appeal, but the benchmark data does not support any performance advantage. The RTX 4080's average score of 54,247 is lower than the P102-100's 58,528, but this is an artifact of the Passmark suite, where the RTX 4080 scores low on DirectX 9 (370), DirectX 10 (204), DirectX 11 (314), and DirectX 12 (132) tests. These scores reflect API-specific optimization rather than raw capability. In the two shared tests, the RTX 4080 wins decisively. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 4080 is the superior GPU by every meaningful benchmark metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58,528, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 has an average of 54,247. This places the P102-100 at the 88th percentile and the RTX 4080 at the 86th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214,739 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 76.9% higher than the P102-100's 49,602. In absolute terms, the RTX 4080 is approximately 4.3 times faster in this test.

Q: Does the P102-100 have any display outputs?

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs, which indicates it was designed exclusively for mining. The RTX 4080, by contrast, has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X. The RTX 4080 also has higher bandwidth at 716.8 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s.

Q: Which card has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX 4080 has ray tracing cores (76) and tensor cores (304). The P102-100 has neither, which is why it only supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The RTX 4080 uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while the P102-100 uses a 16 nm TSMC process. This allows the RTX 4080 to fit 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, compared to 11,800 million transistors in a 471 mm² die for the P102-100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA P102-100 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 |

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

| Chip | GP102 | AD103 |

| 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 | 2205 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 2505 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) | 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 716.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3200 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 200 | 304 |

| ROPs | 80 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 134.6 GPixel/s | 280.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.6 GTexel/s | 761.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 10.77 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) | 48.74 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 Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 310 mm (12.2 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 140 mm (5.5 inches) |

| Width | Not specified | 61 mm (2.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2022-09-19 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | None | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,199 USD |