NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two GPUs despite their shared GP102 silicon. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark, winning both head-to-head tests with a substantial average score advantage. Its average benchmark score of 69986 places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA P102-100 sits at 58528, or the 88th percentile. The P6000 holds a 19.6% lead in average score, a margin that reflects its more complete hardware configuration and professional feature set.

The Quadro P6000 is the only choice for any workload requiring display output, as the P102-100 has no outputs at all. The P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a connections, making it suitable for professional visualization, multi-monitor setups, and any task where visual feedback is necessary. The P102-100, with its mining GPU designation and lack of display connectors, is functionally restricted to compute-only environments.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a headless configuration, the P102-100 remains a capable option, but the benchmark data does not favor it. The Quadro P6000 leads by 33.8% in Geekbench OpenCL and 9.1% in Geekbench Vulkan. The only scenarios where the P102-100 might be considered are those where its 10.77 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is sufficient and the 5 GB memory capacity is adequate, but the performance gap and the lack of display outputs make it a niche product. The Quadro P6000 is the clear recommendation for virtually all use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69986, while the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 58528. The P6000 also ranks higher overall, sitting in the 90th percentile of all GPUs compared to the P102-100's 88th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P6000 leads by 33.8% in the Geekbench OpenCL test (66382 versus 49602) and by 9.1% in the Geekbench Vulkan test (73590 versus 67454). The P6000 won both head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on the GP102 chip using the Pascal architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 16 nm process. Both have 11,800 million transistors and a die size of 471 mm². The transistor density is identical at 25.1M per mm².

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

A: No, the P102-100 has no display outputs. It is designated as a mining GPU. The Quadro P6000, by contrast, offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The P102-100 has higher raw bandwidth, but the P6000 has nearly five times the memory capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Quadro P6000 uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the P102-100 requires two 8-pin connectors.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: the GP102 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The die size is identical at 471 mm², and both pack 11,800 million transistors. The transistor density works out to 25.1M per mm². This means the underlying silicon design is the same, and the differences come from how the chip is configured and enabled.

The Quadro P6000 is part of the Quadro Pascal generation, specifically the Px000 series, while the P102-100 belongs to the Mining GPUs generation. This classification difference has practical implications. The P6000 is a professional workstation card with display outputs, while the P102-100 is a compute-focused mining product without any display connectors.

The chip configuration differs significantly. The Quadro P6000 enables 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The P102-100 has fewer of each: 3200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. This represents a reduction in active silicon resources, which directly explains the lower compute rates. The P6000 achieves 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 and 157.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the P102-100 manages 10.77 TFLOPS and 134.6 GPixel/s.

The memory subsystem also differs architecturally. The P6000 uses a 384-bit memory bus, while the P102-100 is limited to 320-bit. Both use GDDR5X memory, but the P6000 has 24 GB capacity versus 5 GB on the P102-100. Interestingly, the P102-100 has higher memory bandwidth at 440.3 GB/s compared to 432.8 GB/s, achieved through a faster effective memory clock of 11 Gbps versus 9 Gbps.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as expected for the Pascal generation. The P6000 was released on 2016-09-30, while the P102-100 arrived later on 2018-02-11. Both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ between the two cards. The Quadro P6000 has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The P102-100 runs higher at 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost. The memory clocks also differ: the P6000 runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the P102-100 runs at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is the most dramatic difference. The P6000 has 24 GB, while the P102-100 has 5 GB. The bus width differs as well: 384-bit for the P6000 versus 320-bit for the P102-100. Despite the narrower bus, the P102-100 achieves slightly higher bandwidth at 440.3 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Compute resources differ across the board. The P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100 has 3200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. This translates to different throughput numbers: the P6000 reaches 157.9 GPixel/s and 394.8 GTexel/s, while the P102-100 reaches 134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 197.4 GFLOPS versus 168.3 GFLOPS, both at a 1:64 ratio.

The physical and interface specifications also diverge. The P6000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the P102-100 is limited to PCIe 1.0 x4. The P6000 has display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the P102-100 has none. Power connectors differ: one 8-pin for the P6000, two 8-pin for the P102-100. Both have a TDP of 250 W and require a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The P6000 has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the P102-100's height is not recorded. The P6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD; the P102-100 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear winner. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P6000 scores 66382 against the P102-100's 49602, a 33.8% advantage. This is the largest gap between the two cards in any test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P6000 scores 73590 against 67454, a 9.1% lead. The P6000 won both recorded comparisons.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling. A 33.8% deficit means the P102-100 is substantially slower in this compute workload. The P6000's advantage can be attributed to its fuller GPU configuration: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and a wider memory bus. Even though the P102-100 has higher clock speeds, it cannot overcome the reduction in active compute resources.

The Vulkan result is closer but still decisive. At 9.1%, the P6000's lead is smaller, suggesting that the P102-100's higher clocks and faster memory help narrow the gap in this workload. The P102-100's memory bandwidth of 440.3 GB/s actually exceeds the P6000's 432.8 GB/s, which may explain why the Vulkan gap is smaller than the OpenCL gap. However, the P6000 still wins, and its overall average score advantage of 19.6% reflects consistent superiority.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The P6000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70140 (0.2% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70829 (1.2% higher). The P6000 beats the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 by 0.2% and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX by 1.4%. The P102-100's closest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58657 (0.2% higher), while it beats the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT by 0.2%, the Intel Arc A570M by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM by 0.8%. The P102-100's 88th percentile ranking is respectable, but the P6000's 90th percentile ranking is higher.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins in performance across every recorded benchmark category. It is the stronger card for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 33.8% lead is substantial. It also wins in Vulkan, though by a smaller margin of 9.1%. For any task that depends on raw FP32 throughput, the P6000's 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS gives it a clear edge. Its 24 GB memory capacity dwarfs the P102-100's 5 GB, making it suitable for large datasets, complex models, and memory-intensive rendering tasks.

The P6000 is also the only option for any workload requiring display output. Its 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-monitor professional workstations. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the P102-100's API support while adding visual capabilities. The P6000's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is also more appropriate for a general-purpose workstation, compared to the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which is limited and mining-oriented.

The P102-100 has a few narrow advantages. Its memory bandwidth is slightly higher at 440.3 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s, which could benefit certain memory-bound compute tasks. Its higher base clock of 1582 MHz and boost clock of 1683 MHz give it a clock speed advantage over the P6000's 1506 MHz and 1645 MHz. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The P102-100 loses both head-to-head tests, and its reduced shader, TMU, and ROP counts hold it back.

The P102-100's 5 GB memory capacity is a significant limitation for modern workloads. The 320-bit bus and 11 Gbps effective memory clock provide adequate bandwidth, but capacity constraints will surface in large-scale compute tasks. Its mining GPU classification and lack of display outputs restrict its use to headless compute rigs. The dual 8-pin power connectors, while drawing the same 250 W TDP as the P6000, reflect its mining-oriented design.

In practical terms, the Quadro P6000 is the choice for professionals who need display output, high memory capacity, and maximum compute performance. The P102-100 is a niche product for headless mining or compute-only environments where its lower performance is acceptable. The benchmark data does not support choosing the P102-100 for any performance-sensitive application. The P6000 wins 2-0 in head-to-head tests, holds a 19.6% average score advantage, and ranks in a higher percentile of all GPUs.