NVIDIA P102-100 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 records an average benchmark score of 58528, which places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has a lower average benchmark score of 46043, placing it in the 85th percentile. The P102-100's average is roughly 27% higher, though the two cards sit close in percentile rankings.

Q: In the head-to-head tests, which GPU wins?

A: The RTX A2000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 67695 against the P102-100's 49602, a margin of 26.7%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A2000 scores 69089 versus 67454, a narrower 2.4% advantage.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 packs 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. The P102-100 offers substantially higher memory bandwidth, while the A2000 provides more capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The P102-100 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested power supply, drawing power through 2x 8-pin connectors. The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, needs only a 250 W suggested power supply, and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX A2000 includes dedicated ray tracing cores (26) and tensor cores (104), as it is built on the Ampere architecture. The P102-100, based on Pascal, has no RT or tensor cores, and its feature set is limited to traditional raster compute.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of physical size?

A: The P102-100 measures 267 mm or 10.5 inches in length, making it a longer card. The RTX A2000 is significantly more compact at 167 mm or 6.6 inches in length, with a height of 69 mm or 2.7 inches. Both are dual-slot designs.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into distinct use cases. The P102-100 wins outright on raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 performance reaches 10.77 TFLOPS, compared to 7.987 TFLOPS for the A2000, a gap of roughly 35%. Its texture rate of 336.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the A2000's 124.8 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 134.6 GPixel/s more than doubles the A2000's 57.60 GPixel/s. For workloads that hammer raw shading, texturing, or pixel fill, the P102-100 is the stronger part. It also offers 440.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 52.9% higher than the A2000's 288.0 GB/s, a meaningful edge for bandwidth-starved compute tasks.

The RTX A2000 wins on efficiency, modern features, and connectivity. Its TDP of 70 W is less than a third of the P102-100's 250 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors. That makes it deployable in systems with modest power budgets. The A2000 also brings 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, enabling ray tracing and AI-accelerated workflows that the P102-100 cannot handle at all. Its 6 GB memory capacity exceeds the P102-100's 5 GB, which matters for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures. The A2000 also features four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the P102-100 has no display outputs whatsoever, making the A2000 the only viable option for any visual output or workstation use.

In the actual benchmark results, the A2000 wins both head-to-head tests, including a decisive 26.7% margin in Geekbench OpenCL. That suggests the A2000's architectural advantages, such as 1:1 FP16 throughput and modern execution efficiency, overcome the P102-100's raw specification lead in these particular workloads. The P102-100, however, remains competitive in Vulkan, trailing by only 2.4%.

Architecture Differences

The P102-100 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It uses the GP102 chip, the same silicon family that powered high-end gaming cards of that generation. The architecture is purely raster-focused: 3200 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. There are no RT cores or tensor cores. FP16 performance is severely limited at 168.3 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio relative to FP32, meaning half-precision compute is effectively vestigial. The transistor count is 11,800 million on a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm².

The RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its chip is GA106, a smaller and denser design: 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, for a density of 43.5M per mm². Ampere introduces dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations, which the A2000 implements with 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. The shading unit count is slightly higher at 3328, but TMUs drop to 104 and ROPs to 48. Notably, FP16 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS, a 1:1 ratio with FP32, enabling efficient mixed-precision workloads. The A2000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the P102-100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The process node difference is stark: 16 nm versus 8 nm. That explains why the A2000 delivers modern features and lower power draw despite having a higher transistor count on a much smaller die. The P102-100's larger, older node limits its efficiency and feature set. The A2000's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface also vastly outperforms the P102-100's PCIe 1.0 x4 bus, which is a severe bottleneck for data transfer in any workload that moves data between CPU and GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The P102-100 has a base clock of 1582 MHz and a boost clock of 1683 MHz, while the A2000 runs at 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the P102-100 runs at 1376 MHz with 11 Gbps effective, while the A2000 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The P102-100's memory bus is 320-bit versus 192-bit, and its bandwidth advantage is substantial at 440.3 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Shading units are close: 3200 for the P102-100 versus 3328 for the A2000. TMUs and ROPs strongly favor the P102-100 at 200 and 80 respectively, versus 104 and 48 for the A2000. The P102-100 has no RT or tensor cores; the A2000 has 26 and 104. FP32 performance favors the P102-100 at 10.77 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is reversed: the A2000 produces 7.987 TFLOPS, while the P102-100 manages only 168.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The P102-100 draws 250 W with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The A2000 draws 70 W with no external connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The P102-100 is 267 mm long; the A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm tall. The P102-100 has no display outputs; the A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The P102-100 uses PCIe 1.0 x4; the A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The P102-100 was released in February 2018, while the A2000 launched in August 2021. The A2000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 449 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67695 against the P102-100's 49602. That is a 26.7% margin in favor of the A2000, a decisive victory. The result is surprising given the P102-100's higher FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. The A2000's architectural efficiency, including its 1:1 FP16 capability and modern execution design, appears to more than compensate for its lower raw specification numbers.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The A2000 scores 69089, while the P102-100 scores 67454, a difference of only 2.4%. This suggests that in Vulkan workloads, the P102-100's raw compute resources come closer to matching the A2000's architectural advantages. The P102-100's higher texture and pixel rates may contribute to closing the gap in graphics-oriented tasks.

The P102-100's average benchmark score of 58528 sits above the A2000's 46043, which seems contradictory to the head-to-head losses. This discrepancy likely stems from the different benchmark suites used to compute each average. The P102-100's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58657 (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58392 (0.2%), the Intel Arc A570M at 58239 (0.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58085 (0.8%). The A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45972 (0.2%), the Intel Arc A730M at 45592 (1%), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (-1.2%), and the Intel Arc A530M at 46614 (-1.2%).

In raw performance terms, the P102-100's FP32 output is 34.8% higher than the A2000's, and its memory bandwidth is 52.9% higher. The A2000 counters with 2.4 GB more memory capacity, 26 RT cores, 104 tensor cores, and a far more efficient power envelope. The benchmark data indicates that the A2000 wins in the two recorded tests, but the P102-100's strengths in fill rate and bandwidth make it the better choice for specific compute-heavy workloads that do not rely on modern API features.