NVIDIA P106-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

NVIDIA P106-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is a comparison between two very different NVIDIA offerings: one built for mining with no display outputs, the other a workstation-class GPU with full rendering and compute features. The data shows a clear hierarchy in raw performance, but the P106-100 still holds relevance in specific compute workloads. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications strictly from the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes only two shared benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the P106-100’s 35,951. That is a delta of -54.5% for the P106-100, meaning the Quadro RTX 5000 is roughly 119.7% faster in this test. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro RTX 5000 reaches 92,309 while the P106-100 manages 32,897. The delta here is -64.4%, translating to about 180.6% higher performance for the Quadro RTX 5000.

Looking at the overall averages, the P106-100 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 23,249, while the Quadro RTX 5000 sits at 21,629. That means the P106-100 actually holds a higher average score, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is due to the different benchmark sets: the P106-100’s average includes its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 899, while the Quadro RTX 5000’s average includes several Passmark tests (DirectX 9: 195, DirectX 10: 113, DirectX 11: 140, DirectX 12: 59, G2D: 709, G3D: 15,616, GPU Compute: 6,525) that drag its average down. The P106-100’s percentileVsAllGpus is 68, slightly higher than the Quadro RTX 5000’s 67, indicating that in the broader GPU landscape, the P106-100 sits marginally better relative to all other GPUs, despite being slower in these two specific tests.

The nearest rivals data reinforces this nuance. For the P106-100, the closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 with an avgScore of 23,250 and a deltaPct of 0, meaning they are statistically tied. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, -0.1%), AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276, -0.1%), and AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 (23,315, -0.3%) are all within a fraction of a percent. For the Quadro RTX 5000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB with an avgScore of 21,856 and a deltaPct of -1%, meaning the Quadro RTX 5000 is about 1% slower in average score. The RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379, +1.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237, +1.8%), and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153, +2.3%) follow closely. These deltas show that the Quadro RTX 5000’s average is pulled down by its Passmark scores, while its Geekbench results are far above the P106-100.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 5000 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, so in any shared test, it is the clear victor. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 78,999 is more than double the P106-100’s 35,951, indicating superior compute throughput for OpenCL workloads. Similarly, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,309 versus 32,897 shows a massive advantage in Vulkan-based rendering or compute tasks. The data suggests the Quadro RTX 5000 is designed for professional applications that leverage these APIs, likely benefiting from its higher shading unit count (3,072 versus 1,280) and faster memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s).

The P106-100, on the other hand, has no wins in the head-to-head tests. However, its avgBenchmarkScore of 23,249 is higher than the Quadro RTX 5000’s 21,629, which means that in the specific mix of benchmarks used for its average (including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12), the P106-100 performs better. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 899 is a data point the Quadro RTX 5000 does not have, so it is not directly comparable, but it contributes to the P106-100’s higher average. The P106-100 also has a higher percentileVsAllGpus (68 versus 67), suggesting that across the entire GPU population, it ranks slightly better than the Quadro RTX 5000.

For use cases, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the obvious choice for any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan, such as scientific computing, ray tracing, or professional visualization. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory (versus 6 GB GDDR5) and 256-bit bus (versus 192-bit) provide substantially more capacity and bandwidth for large datasets. The P106-100, lacking display outputs, is limited to compute-only environments like mining or headless servers. Its higher average score in its own benchmark set suggests it may be efficient in certain DX12 compute tasks, but without display outputs, it cannot drive a monitor, making it unsuitable for interactive work.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures. The P106-100 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, with a density of 25.0M per mm². The Turing chip is over three times larger in transistor count and nearly three times larger in die area.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The P106-100 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective), with a 192-bit bus yielding 192.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), on a 256-bit bus for 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. That is more than double the capacity and over double the bandwidth. Clock speeds also favor the Quadro RTX 5000: its base is 1620 MHz and boost is 1815 MHz, versus the P106-100’s 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost.

Compute resources are far larger on the Quadro RTX 5000. It has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the P106-100’s 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 5000 also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, which the P106-100 lacks entirely. This translates to a pixel rate of 116.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 348.5 GTexel/s for the Quadro RTX 5000, versus 82.03 GPixel/s and 136.7 GTexel/s for the P106-100. FP32 performance is 11.15 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 5000, more than double the P106-100’s 4.375 TFLOPS. FP16 is even more divergent: the Quadro RTX 5000 delivers 22.30 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the P106-100 only manages 68.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a massive difference of over 300x.

Power and connectivity also tell the story. The P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W, a single 6-pin connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro RTX 5000 has a TDP of 230 W, requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The P106-100 uses a PCIe 1.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro RTX 5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are a key differentiator: the P106-100 has none, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The APIs supported also differ: the P106-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro RTX 5000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by margins of 54.5% and 64.4% respectively, and its architectural advantages—more shading units, higher clocks, larger memory, and dedicated RT and tensor cores—make it the clear choice for professional compute and rendering workloads. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are essential for large-scale simulations or high-resolution textures, and its display outputs allow it to drive up to four monitors, which the P106-100 cannot do at all.

The NVIDIA P106-100, however, is not without merit. Its avgBenchmarkScore of 23,249 is higher than the Quadro RTX 5000’s 21,629, and its percentileVsAllGpus of 68 edges out the Quadro RTX 5000’s 67. This suggests that in its own benchmark set, particularly the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test (score 899), the P106-100 performs competitively. It is also far more power-efficient on paper, with a TDP of 120 W versus 230 W, and requires a simpler power setup (single 6-pin versus 6-pin plus 8-pin). Its 250 mm length versus 267 mm for the Quadro RTX 5000 makes it slightly easier to fit in compact systems.

Who should pick which? If the workload involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute, or any task requiring display output, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the only option from this pair. Its higher FP32 (11.15 TFLOPS) and FP16 (22.30 TFLOPS) performance, plus RT and tensor cores, make it suitable for AI inference, ray tracing, and professional graphics. The P106-100, with no display outputs and limited FP16 (68.36 GFLOPS), is strictly for headless compute environments where its 3DMark DX12 score and higher average benchmark score may be relevant. For a user comparing these two, the Quadro RTX 5000 offers more across the board in shared tests, but the P106-100 has a niche in mining or server-side DX12 compute where its lower power draw and smaller footprint could be advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 23,249, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 has 21,629.

Q: What is the difference in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309, while the P106-100 scores 32,897, a delta of -64.4% for the P106-100.

Q: Does the P106-100 support display outputs?

A: No, the P106-100 has no display outputs, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

Q: How does memory capacity compare?

A: The P106-100 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6, with bandwidths of 192.2 GB/s and 448.0 GB/s respectively.

Q: Are there any architectural features exclusive to the Quadro RTX 5000?

A: Yes, the Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, which the P106-100 does not have.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The P106-100 has a TDP of 120 W, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has a TDP of 230 W.

Specification Differences

• Chip: GP106 (P106-100) versus TU104 (Quadro RTX 5000)
• Architecture: Pascal versus Turing
• Process Node: 16 nm versus 12 nm
• Transistors: 4,400 million versus 13,600 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² versus 545 mm²
• Transistor Density: 22.0M / mm² versus 25.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1506 MHz versus 1620 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1709 MHz versus 1815 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 6 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 192 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 192.2 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1280 versus 3072
• TMUs: 80 versus 192
• ROPs: 48 versus 64
• RT Cores: None versus 48
• Tensor Cores: None versus 384
• Pixel Rate: 82.03 GPixel/s versus 116.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 136.7 GTexel/s versus 348.5 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 4.375 TFLOPS versus 11.15 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64) versus 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 120 W versus 230 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 1.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Dimensions: 250 mm (9.8 inches) length versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height
• Release Date: 2017-06-18 versus 2018-08-12