NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is the definitive choice for any compute-focused workload. It wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins, holds a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher performance percentile. The NVIDIA P102-100, a mining-specific card with no display outputs, cannot match the RTX 6000's raw performance or feature set, making it a niche option at best.

For professionals requiring the highest compute throughput, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the only rational pick. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 74,179 is 49.5% higher than the P102-100's 49,602. In the Vulkan API test, the gap widens dramatically: the RTX 6000 scores 129,564, a 92.1% advantage over the P102-100's 67,454. These are not marginal differences; they represent a class-level separation in computational capability.

The P102-100, conversely, is a product with severe limitations. It has no display outputs, relies on a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, and its nearest rivals in the database (AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657, AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58,392, Intel Arc A570M at 58,239, AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085) are all within a 0.8% delta of its average score of 58,528. Its 88th percentile ranking places it well below the RTX 6000's 94th percentile. The data indicates the P102-100 was designed for a single, narrow purpose, and it is outclassed in general compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two NVIDIA cards is foundational. The Quadro RTX 6000 is built on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU102 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process node at TSMC. It integrates 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.7M per mm². The P102-100 uses the older Pascal architecture with the GP102 chip, built on a 16 nm process, containing 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 25.1M per mm².

The feature set diverges sharply. The RTX 6000 includes 72 dedicated RT cores and 576 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI processing. The P102-100 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, confirming its stripped-down mining pedigree. This is reflected in the API support: the RTX 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying hardware capabilities are fundamentally different.

The memory subsystems also differ. The RTX 6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P102-100 has only 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, providing 440.3 GB/s. The RTX 6000's memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the P102-100 runs at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective). The core clock situation is inverted: the P102-100 has a higher base clock at 1582 MHz versus 1440 MHz, but the RTX 6000 has a higher boost clock at 1770 MHz versus 1683 MHz.

The RTX 6000's TU102 chip provides 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The P102-100's GP102 offers 3,200 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. These differences cascade into the compute rates: the RTX 6000 achieves 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the P102-100 manages 10.77 TFLOPS FP32 and a paltry 168.3 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64). The FP16 ratio is particularly telling, showing the P102-100 was not designed for modern compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 is overwhelmingly faster. It scores 74,179 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,564 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the P102-100's 49,602 and 67,454 respectively. The RTX 6000 also delivers 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 versus 10.77 TFLOPS for the P102-100.

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

A: No. The P102-100 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any workstation or desktop use that requires a monitor. The Quadro RTX 6000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X. Memory bandwidth also favors the RTX 6000 at 672.0 GB/s versus 440.3 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and AI features?

A: Only the Quadro RTX 6000 supports these features. It includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The P102-100 has neither, indicating its design for mining rather than graphics or compute.

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX 6000 has an average benchmark score of 101,872, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. The P102-100 averages 58,528, in the 88th percentile. The RTX 6000 is roughly 74% higher in average score.

Q: Is the P102-100 competitive with any modern cards?

A: The database shows its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657, delta -0.2%), AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, delta 0.2%), Intel Arc A570M (58,239, delta 0.5%), and AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, delta 0.8%). These are all within a 1% margin, indicating the P102-100 is a mid-range performer at best.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | NVIDIA P102-100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |

| Chip | TU102 | GP102 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 1582 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1683 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 440.3 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 3200 |

| TMUs | 288 | 200 |

| ROPs | 96 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 72 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 134.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 336.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 16.31 TFLOPS | 10.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 260 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the Quadro RTX 6000 in both benchmark tests.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 6000 scores 74,179 against the P102-100's 49,602. This represents a 49.5% delta in favor of the RTX 6000. This is a significant margin, indicating that the RTX 6000's larger memory pool, higher bandwidth, and greater shader count translate directly into computational throughput. The P102-100's 10.77 TFLOPS FP32 cannot compete with the RTX 6000's 16.31 TFLOPS in this general-purpose compute test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the results are even more lopsided. The RTX 6000 achieves 129,564, while the P102-100 manages 67,454. The delta is 92.1%, nearly double the performance. The Vulkan API leverages the full feature set of the graphics hardware, and the RTX 6000's Turing architecture with its 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores provides a massive advantage. The P102-100's lack of these specialized cores, combined with its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, severely bottlenecks its performance in this modern graphics API.

The aggregate data reinforces the verdict. The RTX 6000's average benchmark score is 101,872, while the P102-100 sits at 58,528. The RTX 6000 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, with the P102-100 winning none. The percentile rankings also favor the RTX 6000: 94th versus 88th for the P102-100. Every metric in the database points to the same conclusion: the Quadro RTX 6000 is in a different performance class.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 dominates every recorded category. It wins both benchmark tests, has higher compute throughput (FP32 and FP16), more memory, higher memory bandwidth, and a full suite of display outputs. Its feature set, including RT cores and tensor cores, makes it suitable for professional visualization, AI inference, and any workload that demands the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The 24 GB memory capacity allows for massive datasets and complex scenes that would be impossible on the 5 GB P102-100. The RTX 6000 is the clear choice for professionals in 3D rendering, scientific computing, and machine learning, based on the data.

The NVIDIA P102-100 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only advantages are a higher base clock (1582 MHz vs 1440 MHz) and a slightly higher transistor density (25.1M / mm² vs 24.7M / mm²). These do not translate into any performance benefit in the recorded tests. The card's lack of display outputs and its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface make it unsuitable for any general-purpose use. Its nearest rivals, all within a 0.8% delta of its average score, indicate it performs at the level of a mid-range consumer card, not a professional workstation product. The data suggests the P102-100 is a specialized mining tool, and outside of that narrow context, it has no clear use case where it outperforms the RTX 6000.