NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA P102-100 than the Quadro M6000 in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The data shows the P102-100 wins both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 49,602 versus 39,688, a 25% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 67,454 versus 46,913, a 43.8% lead.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58,528, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M6000 has an average score of 43,301, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the P102-100 in the database?

A: The closest competitors are the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (average score 58,657, which is 0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, 0.2% lower), the Intel Arc A570M (58,239, 0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, 0.8% lower).

Q: What is the nearest rival to the Quadro M6000?

A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile with an average score of 43,268, which is 0.1% lower. The Quadro M6000 24 GB also sits nearby at 43,262 (0.1% lower), followed by the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 (0.2% lower). The GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 43,667, which is 0.8% higher.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory type?

A: No. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 320-bit bus, while the Quadro M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a faster base clock?

A: The P102-100 has a base clock of 1582 MHz, which is significantly higher than the Quadro M6000's base clock of 988 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different NVIDIA architecture generations. The P102-100 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip. It is manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC, with 11,800 million transistors packed into a 471 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Quadro M6000, in contrast, is a Maxwell 2.0 architecture part based on the GM200 chip. It uses an older 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The die is larger at 601 mm², but it contains fewer transistors: 8,000 million. Its transistor density is therefore much lower at 13.3M / mm².

These architectural differences lead to distinct feature sets. The P102-100 is a mining-specific GPU with no display outputs. It is designed for compute workloads without any video output capability. The Quadro M6000 is a professional workstation card that features 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for visualization and multi-monitor setups.

The P102-100 has a transistor density that is nearly double that of the Quadro M6000, a direct result of the manufacturing process leap. The newer Pascal architecture also supports a much higher FP32 throughput: 10.77 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS on the older Maxwell card. The Quadro M6000 has no FP16 support listed in the database, while the P102-100 offers FP16 at a severely reduced ratio of 1:64, yielding 168.3 GFLOPS.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so their API compatibility is identical. Both are dual-slot cards with a 250 W TDP and require a 600 W power supply, though the P102-100 uses two 8-pin connectors versus the Quadro M6000's single 8-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two head-to-head benchmark tests for this pair, and the P102-100 wins both times. The first test is Geekbench OpenCL. The P102-100 scores 49,602 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688, a 25% advantage. This is a substantial generational leap, and it aligns with the raw compute differences: the P102-100 has a 57% higher FP32 rating (10.77 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS).

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the gap widens further. The P102-100 scores 67,454, while the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913. That is a 43.8% difference, meaning the Pascal card is almost half again as fast in Vulkan workloads. The Vulkan result is particularly notable because it shows the architectural delta in a modern API, whereas OpenCL is older and shows a narrower 25% gap.

In terms of average benchmark score, the P102-100 sits at 58,528. This places it exactly between the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657) and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392), both of which are within 0.2% of its score. The Quadro M6000, with an average of 43,301, sits near the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223), all within 0.2% of each other. The data shows that the P102-100 is in a completely different performance tier, roughly 35% higher average score than the Quadro M6000.

Looking at the wins tally, the P102-100 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record. The Quadro M6000 records zero wins in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every key specification. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip, while the Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip. The process node is 16 nm versus 28 nm, and the transistor count is 11,800 million versus 8,000 million. The die size is 471 mm² versus 601 mm², and the density is 25.1M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm².

Clock speeds are dramatically different. The P102-100 runs at a base clock of 1582 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz. The Quadro M6000 runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. Memory speed also diverges: the P102-100 uses 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective), while the Quadro M6000 uses 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and type are major differences. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, providing 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but with lower bandwidth at 317.4 GB/s. Despite having a wider bus, the Quadro M6000 is slower in memory bandwidth due to the older memory type and lower effective clock.

Compute unit counts vary slightly. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. The Quadro M6000 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100 wins in shading units and TMUs, but the Quadro M6000 has more ROPs.

The pixel rate is 134.6 GPixel/s for the P102-100 versus 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro M6000. Texture rate is 336.6 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 10.77 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. The Quadro M6000 has no FP16 figure, while the P102-100 has 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64).

The power connectors differ: 2x 8-pin for the P102-100 versus 1x 8-pin for the Quadro M6000. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 1.0 x4 for the P102-100 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro M6000. The P102-100 has no display outputs, while the Quadro M6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Both are 267 mm long and dual-slot, but only the Quadro M6000 lists a height of 111 mm.

Where Each One Wins

The P102-100 wins in every benchmark category in the data. It is 25% ahead in OpenCL and 43.8% ahead in Vulkan. This makes it the clear choice for raw compute performance, including GPU computing tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration or Vulkan compute. The higher pixel rate (134.6 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s) and texture rate (336.6 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s) reinforce its lead in fill-rate-bound operations.

The P102-100 also wins on memory bandwidth (440.3 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s) and memory speed (11 Gbps effective versus 6.6 Gbps effective) despite having a narrower bus. The 5 GB capacity is smaller, but the newer GDDR5X technology compensates with higher throughput.

The Quadro M6000 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but it does have specific advantages in memory quantity and connectivity. It offers 12 GB of VRAM, more than double the P102-100's 5 GB. This makes it more suitable for workloads that require large memory footprints, such as deep learning inference or large 3D scenes, where capacity matters more than raw bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 also has display outputs, meaning it can be used for professional visualization and multi-monitor setups. The P102-100 cannot output video at all.

The Quadro M6000 also has a wider memory bus (384 bit versus 320 bit) and more ROPs (96 versus 80), which can help in specific pixel-bound scenarios. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is more modern than the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface. This is a massive difference in host connectivity, and for workloads that transfer data between CPU and GPU frequently, the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is far superior, regardless of the GPU's compute power.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided in terms of raw compute performance. The NVIDIA P102-100 is the faster card by a wide margin, showing a 25% lead in OpenCL and a 43.8% lead in Vulkan. It also has a higher average benchmark score (58,528 versus 43,301) and sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro M6000's 84th percentile. If the workload is compute-intensive and does not rely on display output, the P102-100 is the definitive choice.

However, the Quadro M6000 is not without merit. It offers 12 GB of VRAM, which is 2.4 times the P102-100's 5 GB. It also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, full display outputs, and a more conventional power connector arrangement. For users who need a workstation GPU for professional applications that require large memory footprints, the Quadro M6000 is the more practical card, even if it is slower across the board in compute.

The P102-100 is a mining-specific part with no display capabilities, so it should only be considered for headless compute servers or dedicated compute nodes. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface may bottleneck data transfer in some workloads, but for pure compute, the higher FP32 and memory bandwidth are decisive.

The verdict is simple: for pure performance, choose the P102-100. For a general-purpose workstation with memory capacity and display outputs, the Quadro M6000 is the only viable option between the two. The P102-100's benchmark wins are clear, but the Quadro M6000's specification advantages in memory and connectivity give it a distinct use case that the P102-100 cannot fill.