AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

NVIDIA P102-100 and AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT are two very different GPUs from different eras, with the former built for mining and the latter for gaming. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the underlying architectures and intended use cases create a more nuanced comparison than raw scores alone suggest. The AMD card wins both shared benchmark tests, but the NVIDIA part holds a higher percentile ranking overall, indicating a complex relationship between synthetic test suites and real-world positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT dominates the shared benchmark suite, winning both head-to-head tests decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 187,673 against the P102-100’s 49,602, a 73.6% advantage. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: 148,525 versus 67,454, a 54.6% lead. These are not marginal victories; the RX 6900 XT roughly triples the P102-100’s OpenCL output and more than doubles its Vulkan score. For any compute or graphics workload represented by these APIs, the AMD card is the clear performer.

However, the P102-100 wins in overall percentile placement. It sits at the 88th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6900 XT sits at the 86th. This is despite the RX 6900 XT’s higher raw benchmark scores. The explanation lies in the average benchmark scores: the P102-100 averages 58,528 across its two tests, while the RX 6900 XT averages 50,951 across its eleven tests. The RX 6900 XT’s broader test coverage includes lower DirectX and Passmark scores that drag its average down, whereas the P102-100’s limited test set only includes its two strongest results. The P102-100’s wins are contextual, not absolute.

The RX 6900 XT also shows strength in specialized workloads. Its Passmark G3D score of 26,732 and GPU Compute score of 14,547 indicate strong DirectX-era gaming and compute performance. The P102-100 has no such tests recorded, so its suitability for those tasks is unknown from this data. For gaming, the RX 6900 XT’s feature set and benchmark spread make it the obvious choice. The P102-100, with no display outputs, is not designed for gaming at all.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². The RX 6900 XT uses the Navi 21 chip on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, achieving 51.5M transistors per mm². The RX 6900 XT more than doubles the transistor count and doubles the density, a direct result of the smaller process node.

Memory subsystems diverge significantly. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6900 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The AMD card has over three times the capacity and 16% more bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, thanks to faster memory clocks. The P102-100’s memory runs at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective), while the RX 6900 XT runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. The RX 6900 XT has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The AMD card also includes 80 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the P102-100. The Pascal chip has no dedicated RT or tensor cores, while RDNA 2.0 integrates RT acceleration directly. This is a fundamental capability difference, not just a scaling one.

Clock speeds favor the RX 6900 XT across the board. Its base clock is 1825 MHz, boost is 2250 MHz, and game clock is 2015 MHz. The P102-100 has a 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost. The resulting throughput numbers are stark: the RX 6900 XT delivers 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 versus 10.77 TFLOPS for the P102-100. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: 46.08 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio for the Pascal part versus a 2:1 ratio for RDNA 2.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD card wins both. The OpenCL result is the most one-sided. The RX 6900 XT scores 187,673 against the P102-100’s 49,602, a delta of -73.6% from the AMD card’s perspective. This means the P102-100 delivers only about a quarter of the RX 6900 XT’s OpenCL performance. The RX 6900 XT’s higher shading unit count, faster clocks, and doubled FP32 throughput fully explain this gap.

The Vulkan test narrows the margin but still heavily favors AMD. The RX 6900 XT scores 148,525 versus 67,454 for the P102-100, a 54.6% advantage. Vulkan’s lower overhead and better multi-threading may help the older Pascal architecture relatively more than OpenCL does, but the raw compute advantage of RDNA 2.0 remains decisive. The P102-100’s Vulkan score is 36% higher than its OpenCL score, while the RX 6900 XT’s Vulkan score is 21% lower than its OpenCL score. This suggests the NVIDIA part responds better to Vulkan’s API efficiency, but it still cannot overcome the fundamental hardware disparity.

The RX 6900 XT’s other benchmarks provide additional context, though no direct P102-100 comparison exists. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4079 and Passmark G3D score of 26,732 indicate strong modern gaming performance. The P102-100 lacks these test results entirely, reflecting its mining-focused design. The RX 6900 XT’s Geekbench Metal score of 177,021 is notable as well, though the P102-100 has no Metal results recorded.

Specification Differences

The core specifications differ on nearly every measurable field. The process node is 16 nm versus 7 nm, with transistor counts of 11,800 million versus 26,800 million. Die size is 471 mm² versus 520 mm², and transistor density is 25.1M/mm² versus 51.5M/mm². The RX 6900 XT’s memory is 16 GB GDDR6 versus 5 GB GDDR5X, with bus widths of 256-bit versus 320-bit. Bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s, and memory clocks are 2000 MHz versus 1376 MHz.

The RX 6900 XT has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, compared to 3200, 200, and 80 for the P102-100. The AMD card has 80 ray tracing cores; the NVIDIA part has none. Pixel rate is 288.0 GPixel/s versus 134.6 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 720.0 GTexel/s versus 336.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 23.04 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 46.08 TFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The RX 6900 XT has a 300 W TDP versus 250 W for the P102-100. The AMD card is triple-slot, while the NVIDIA part is dual-slot. Both use 2x 8-pin power connectors, but the suggested PSU is 700 W for AMD versus 600 W for NVIDIA. The bus interface differs dramatically: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6900 XT versus PCIe 1.0 x4 for the P102-100. The P102-100 has no display outputs, while the RX 6900 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. Both are 267 mm long, but the RX 6900 XT adds height and width dimensions of 120 mm and 50 mm.

DirectX support differs as well: the RX 6900 XT supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 supports 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are 2020-10-27 for the AMD card and 2018-02-11 for the NVIDIA part. The RX 6900 XT has a predecessor (Navi) and successor (Navi III), while the P102-100 has neither. The RX 6900 XT’s launch MSRP was 999 USD; the P102-100 has no recorded MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has a higher average benchmark score of 58,528 compared to the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT’s 50,951, despite the AMD card winning both shared tests, because the P102-100’s average is based on only two high scores while the RX 6900 XT’s includes eleven tests with some lower DirectX results.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6900 XT in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6900 XT scores 187,673 versus the P102-100’s 49,602, representing a 73.6% advantage for the AMD card in that specific workload.

Q: Does the P102-100 support ray tracing?

A: No, the P102-100 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6900 XT includes 80 dedicated RT cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6900 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X, giving the AMD card over three times the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6900 XT has a transistor density of 51.5M per mm², while the P102-100 has 25.1M per mm², a direct result of the 7 nm process versus 16 nm.

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

A: No, the P102-100 has no display outputs, whereas the RX 6900 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C connections.