NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent margin for the NVIDIA P102-100 in both available benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P102-100 scores 49,602 points, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098 points. This translates to a 23.7% lead for the P102-100. The margin widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P102-100 posts 67,454 points against the Quadro's 46,425 points, a 45.3% advantage. The P102-100 wins both head-to-head comparisons, with a total of 2 wins to 0.

The average benchmark score for the P102-100 is 58,528, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals based on average score include the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657, a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, a 0.2% difference), the Intel Arc A570M (58,239, a 0.5% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, a 0.8% difference). The P102-100 essentially trades places with these cards, sitting within a 1% band of its closest competition. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, with an average score of 43,262, sits in the 83rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, a 0% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (43,301, a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, a 0.1% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667, a 0.9% difference). The Quadro's position among these cards shows it is competitive with modern mobile and desktop parts, but its absolute score is far below the P102-100.

The Vulkan result is particularly notable because it shows a larger performance gap than the OpenCL test. The 45.3% delta in Vulkan suggests that the P102-100 has a significant architectural advantage in this API, possibly related to driver efficiency or hardware scheduling. The OpenCL test, while still a clear win for the P102-100, shows a smaller 23.7% gap, indicating that the two cards are closer in compute-heavy workloads that do not rely on the newer API features.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing nodes. The P102-100 is based on the GP102 chip using the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a larger 28 nm process. This older node houses 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, giving a lower density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The Pascal chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, which is a direct result of the newer process technology.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 440.3 GB/s with an effective memory clock of 11 Gbps. The Quadro M6000 24 GB offers 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 317.4 GB/s, with an effective clock of 6.6 Gbps. The P102-100 wins on raw bandwidth, but the Quadro has nearly five times the memory capacity. The P102-100's memory clock is 1376 MHz, while the Quadro's is 1653 MHz, but the effective data rates (11 Gbps vs 6.6 Gbps) favor the P102-100 due to the GDDR5X standard.

Core configurations also differ. The P102-100 has 3,200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100 has more shaders and TMUs, but fewer ROPs. Clock speeds are significantly higher on the P102-100, with a base of 1582 MHz and boost of 1683 MHz, compared to the Quadro's 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. This clock advantage drives the compute throughput: the P102-100 delivers 10.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro manages 6.844 TFLOPS. The P102-100 also has a specified FP16 rate of 168.3 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the Quadro has no FP16 data recorded.

Other architectural differences include the power connector configuration. The P102-100 requires 2x 8-pin connectors, while the Quadro uses a single 8-pin. Both cards have a TDP of 250 W and a suggested power supply of 600 W. The bus interface differs: the P102-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x4, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The P102-100 has no display outputs, as it is designed for mining, whereas the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both cards are dual-slot, share the same length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), and the Quadro also has a recorded height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has an average benchmark score of 58,528, compared to the Quadro M6000 24 GB's 43,262, a difference of roughly 15,266 points.

Q: How much faster is the P102-100 in the Vulkan test?

A: The P102-100 scores 67,454 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro scores 46,425, giving the P102-100 a 45.3% advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory. The Quadro has 19 GB more capacity.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The P102-100 has a bandwidth of 440.3 GB/s, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB has 317.4 GB/s. The P102-100 leads by 122.9 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), as well as OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the transistor count on each chip?

A: The P102-100's GP102 chip has 11,800 million transistors, while the Quadro's GM200 chip has 8,000 million transistors.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the NVIDIA P102-100 for raw compute performance. It wins both recorded tests, with a 23.7% lead in OpenCL and a 45.3% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 58,528 places it in the 88th percentile, well above the Quadro's 83rd percentile. The P102-100 also has a higher FP32 throughput (10.77 TFLOPS vs 6.844 TFLOPS), higher memory bandwidth (440.3 GB/s vs 317.4 GB/s), and significantly higher clock speeds.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB, however, has one clear advantage: memory capacity. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 is nearly five times the P102-100's 5 GB. This makes the Quadro suitable for workloads that require very large datasets to reside on the GPU, such as certain rendering or machine learning inference tasks. The Quadro also has display outputs, while the P102-100 has none, and it uses a more standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface compared to the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4. The P102-100's interface is a major bottleneck for data transfer, which could negate some of its compute advantage in real-world scenarios that require frequent host-device communication.

For compute-bound tasks where memory capacity is not the limiting factor, the P102-100 is the stronger choice based on the data. For tasks that require large memory footprints or display connectivity, the Quadro is the only viable option between the two. The P102-100's lack of display outputs and older PCIe interface are significant limitations that cannot be ignored.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA P102-100 | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1582 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1683 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3200 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 200 | 192 |

| ROPs | 80 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 134.6 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 336.6 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 10.77 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not specified |

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

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2018-02-11 | 2016-03-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 4,999 USD |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Pascal |

Where Each One Wins

The P102-100 wins in all compute performance metrics recorded in the database. It is faster in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, with margins of 23.7% and 45.3% respectively. It offers nearly 1.6 times the FP32 throughput, higher texture and pixel rates, and a 38.7% higher memory bandwidth. Its higher clock speeds and newer architecture contribute to these results. The P102-100 is the clear choice for raw processing power, especially in Vulkan workloads.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB wins in memory capacity, offering 24 GB versus the P102-100's 5 GB. This is a 480% increase in memory size, which can be critical for applications that need to hold large models or datasets on the GPU. The Quadro also has display outputs, making it usable in a standard workstation environment, while the P102-100 cannot drive any display. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which is far more modern and has much higher bandwidth than the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4 connection. For workloads that are memory-bound or require display output, the Quadro is the only option that functions in those scenarios.

The data also shows the Quadro has a slightly higher number of ROPs (96 vs 80), which could benefit certain rasterization workloads, but its lower clock speeds and texture rate mean it would still likely trail the P102-100 in most rendering tasks. The P102-100's lack of display outputs and its older bus interface are significant drawbacks that prevent it from being a general-purpose card, even though it is computationally superior. The choice between the two depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound (choose P102-100) or capacity/connectivity-bound (choose Quadro).