NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 vs NVIDIA P106-100 Comparison

NVIDIA P106-100 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by nearly eight years of architecture evolution. The P106-100, a Pascal-era mining card with no video outputs, faces the Blackwell 2.0-based RTX 5050, a modern consumer GPU with full display support and ray tracing hardware. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, but the P106-100 still holds relevance in specific legacy and compute scenarios where its unique characteristics matter more than raw speed.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5050 wins outright in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking all three comparisons in the database. Its most dominant victory comes in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 2502 against the P106-100's 899, a 64.1% margin. This modern DirectX 12 workload clearly favors the newer architecture's features, including mesh shaders and improved geometry processing. The RTX 5050 also crushes the P106-100 in compute-oriented tests, with Geekbench OpenCL scores of 90334 versus 35951 (a 60.2% lead) and Vulkan scores of 89381 versus 32897 (a 63.2% lead). These results reflect the RTX 5050's doubled shading unit count and nearly triple FP32 throughput.

The P106-100's wins are not in performance but in specific characteristics. It carries a 192-bit memory bus versus the RTX 5050's 128-bit bus, giving it a wider memory path despite lower bandwidth. Its 48 ROPs exceed the RTX 5050's 32, which can benefit certain fill-rate-bound legacy workloads. The Pascal architecture's 1:64 FP16 ratio means it processes FP16 at a tiny fraction of FP32 speed, a limitation that ironically makes it unsuitable for modern AI workloads where the RTX 5050's 1:1 FP16 ratio excels. The P106-100 also consumes slightly less power at 120 W versus 130 W, though both suggest a 300 W power supply.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The P106-100 records an average benchmark score of 23249, while the RTX 5050 averages 21035. However, this metric is skewed by the P106-100's narrower benchmark set; in direct head-to-head comparisons, the RTX 5050 wins every test by at least 60%.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The P106-100 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5050 has more capacity and higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P106-100 implements DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The P106-100 packs 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die using TSMC's 16 nm process, yielding 22.0M transistors per mm². The RTX 5050 crams 16,900 million transistors onto a smaller 149 mm² die using TSMC's 5 nm process, achieving 113.4M transistors per mm², over five times the density.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 5050 has exactly double the P106-100's shading units: 2560 versus 1280. It also adds 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Pascal-based P106-100.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: The P106-100 is end-of-life, released in June 2017. The RTX 5050 is active, released in June 2025, with its predecessor listed as GeForce 40 and successor as GeForce 60.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three direct comparisons in the database paint a consistent picture of RTX 5050 dominance. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX 5050 scores 2502 against the P106-100's 899, a delta of -64.1% from the P106-100's perspective. This means the RTX 5050 delivers roughly 2.8 times the performance in this modern gaming workload. The gap is large enough to suggest the P106-100 struggles with contemporary DirectX 12 rendering techniques, likely due to its lack of dedicated hardware for ray tracing and its older shader architecture.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern. The RTX 5050 posts 90334, while the P106-100 manages only 35951. The delta of -60.2% indicates the RTX 5050 is about 2.5 times faster in general-purpose compute. This test exercises FP32 throughput, where the RTX 5050's 13.17 TFLOPS dwarfs the P106-100's 4.375 TFLOPS. The RTX 5050's 2560 shading units, running at 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost, simply outmuscle the P106-100's 1280 units at 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost.

Geekbench Vulkan mirrors the OpenCL result. The RTX 5050 achieves 89381 versus 32897, a 63.2% delta. Vulkan's lower-level API allows both cards to stretch their legs, but the architectural gulf remains. The RTX 5050's 205.8 GTexel/s texture rate and 82.30 GPixel/s pixel rate compare favorably to the P106-100's 136.7 GTexel/s and 82.03 GPixel/s. Interestingly, the pixel rates are nearly identical, suggesting fill-rate-bound scenarios could narrow the gap, but the RTX 5050's advantages in texture and compute overwhelm this parity.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply across nearly every specification. The P106-100 uses a GP106 chip on Pascal architecture, built on TSMC's 16 nm process with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The RTX 5050 uses a GB207 chip on Blackwell 2.0, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 16,900 million transistors on a smaller 149 mm² die. Transistor density jumps from 22.0M per mm² to 113.4M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The P106-100 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost, while the RTX 5050 runs at 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the P106-100 uses 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the RTX 5050 uses 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) GDDR6. The RTX 5050's 320.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the P106-100's 192.2 GB/s despite having a narrower 128-bit bus versus 192-bit.

Compute resources favor the newer card: 2560 shading units versus 1280, 80 TMUs versus 80 (a tie), 32 ROPs versus 48 (P106-100 wins). The RTX 5050 adds 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, features the P106-100 lacks entirely. FP32 throughput is 13.17 TFLOPS versus 4.375 TFLOPS. FP16 shows the starkest contrast: the RTX 5050 achieves 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the P106-100 manages only 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a 192-fold difference in FP16 capability.

Power and connectivity also diverge. The P106-100 draws 120 W with a 1x 6-pin connector, while the RTX 5050 draws 130 W with a 1x 8-pin connector. Both are dual-slot and suggest a 300 W PSU. The P106-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x16 (a legacy interface despite its 2017 release), while the RTX 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs differ completely: the P106-100 has none, while the RTX 5050 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap spans two major NVIDIA generations. Pascal, introduced in 2016, uses a monolithic design with separate FP32 and FP16 paths. The P106-100's 1:64 FP16 ratio means it processes FP16 operations at one sixty-fourth the rate of FP32, making it essentially useless for half-precision workloads. Blackwell 2.0, the RTX 5050's architecture, implements unified FP32/FP16 execution at a 1:1 ratio, enabling efficient AI inference and training workloads.

Ray tracing marks another fundamental split. The RTX 5050 includes 20 dedicated RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the P106-100 has none. Similarly, the RTX 5050's 80 tensor cores enable AI features like DLSS and neural rendering, capabilities entirely absent from the Pascal chip. The P106-100, designed for cryptocurrency mining, omits display outputs and relies on a mining-specific PCIe interface. Its 192-bit bus and 48 ROPs were optimized for memory-intensive hashing algorithms rather than graphics rendering.

The manufacturing process reflects a full node transition. TSMC's 16 nm FinFET process used by Pascal gives way to TSMC's 5 nm process for Blackwell 2.0. This allows the RTX 5050 to pack nearly four times more transistors into a smaller die, resulting in over five times the transistor density. The process shrink also enables higher clock speeds: 2572 MHz boost versus 1709 MHz, a 50% increase. These architectural and process changes combine to deliver the RTX 5050's massive performance advantage.

DirectX support differs as well. The P106-100 implements DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). This means the RTX 5050 can leverage features like variable rate shading, mesh shaders, and DirectX Raytracing, none of which are available on the Pascal card. Vulkan support is identical at 1.4, but the underlying hardware capabilities differ enormously.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity: the RTX 5050 is the superior GPU in every measurable way. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 60% or more, offers double the shading units, triples the FP32 throughput, and adds ray tracing and tensor core capabilities. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth provides more capacity and higher speed than the P106-100's 6 GB of GDDR5. For gaming, content creation, or AI workloads, the RTX 5050 is the clear choice.

The P106-100 retains niche appeal only in specific scenarios. Its 48 ROPs and 192-bit memory bus could theoretically benefit fill-rate-bound legacy applications, though its lower clock speeds and older architecture limit this advantage. Its lower 120 W power draw and 6-pin connector make it easier to power in constrained systems. However, its lack of display outputs means it requires a secondary GPU for any visual output, rendering it impractical for most users. The P106-100's end-of-life status and 68th percentile ranking versus the RTX 5050's 66th percentile (a difference within the noise of rival comparisons) suggest the average score metric obscures the true performance gap. Any buyer choosing between these two should select the RTX 5050, which offers modern features, active support, and dramatically higher performance across every benchmark in the database.