RTX A2000 vs P106-090

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared P106-090 and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

P106-090
2017
3 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
6.07

RTX A2000 outperforms P106-090 by a whopping 486% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking581139
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data85.71
Power efficiency5.6535.42
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP106GA106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date31 July 2017 (7 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7683328
Core clock speed1354 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speed1531 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate73.49124.8
Floating-point processing power2.352 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs48104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length250 mm167 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB6 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed2002 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s288.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.18.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

P106-090 6.07
RTX A2000 35.54
+486%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

P106-090 2342
RTX A2000 13712
+485%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

P106-090 21168
RTX A2000 73240
+246%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

P106-090 19478
RTX A2000 68591
+252%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD16−18
−500%
96
+500%
1440p7−8
−529%
44
+529%
4K5−6
−520%
31
+520%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.68
1440pno data10.20
4Kno data14.48

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.07 35.54
Recency 31 July 2017 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 70 Watt

RTX A2000 has a 485.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the P106-090 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA P106-090
P106-090
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 49 votes

Rate P106-090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 567 votes

Rate RTX A2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.