AMD Radeon HD 8970M vs NVIDIA TITAN Xp Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8970M and the NVIDIA TITAN Xp sit in the same region of the database's overall rankings, but they arrive there from very different places. The HD 8970M is an end-of-life mobile part built on AMD's first-generation GCN architecture, occupying the 66th percentile of all recorded GPUs with an average benchmark score of 21237. The TITAN Xp, a desktop flagship from the GeForce 10 generation, lands at the 64th percentile with an average score of 19177. Despite that near-identical standing, the head-to-head data tells a lopsided story: across the single test where both parts have recorded results, the TITAN Xp wins outright, and it wins by a margin that reshapes any comparison between them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is decisive. The TITAN Xp scores 72585 against the HD 8970M's 21237, a delta of 70.7 percent in NVIDIA's favor. In practical terms, the TITAN Xp delivers roughly three and a half times the OpenCL compute throughput of the HD 8970M in this workload. That is not a nuanced gap that workload selection could close; it reflects a fundamental difference in raw capability.

The aggregate records reinforce the same picture. The TITAN Xp carries a broader benchmark footprint, including a PassMark G3D score of 18750, a PassMark GPU compute score of 9430, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2372, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 87180, alongside PassMark results spanning DirectX 9 through 12 (226, 152, 119, and 69 respectively) and a G2D score of 883. The HD 8970M's database entry contains only the Geekbench OpenCL result. The wins tally across the head-to-head set reads zero for the HD 8970M and one for the TITAN Xp.

Context from each part's nearest rivals sharpens the analysis. The HD 8970M's score of 21237 sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21153, 0.7 percent behind the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379, 1 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 at 21035, and 1.8 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 at 21629. In other words, its measured performance is essentially interchangeable with a band of modern lower-tier mobile and entry desktop parts in this database's aggregate scoring. The TITAN Xp's average of 19177 places it 0.1 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 at 19164, 0.5 percent above the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19089, 0.7 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049, and 0.7 percent above the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19036. Its rival set is similarly compressed, but note that the TITAN Xp leads every one of its listed rivals, whereas the HD 8970M trails two of its four.

The percentile figures deserve a caveat. The HD 8970M's 66th percentile against all GPUs is marginally higher than the TITAN Xp's 64th, yet this apparent parity comes from averaging over very different benchmark sets. Where the two actually meet, in Geekbench OpenCL, the margin is 70.7 percent for the TITAN Xp. The database's per-test data should therefore be weighted more heavily than the blended averages here.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by roughly four years and two process-node generations. The HD 8970M, released on May 13, 2013, uses the Neptune chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die for a density of 13.2M per square millimeter. The TITAN Xp, released on April 5, 2017, uses the GP102 chip on TSMC's 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors across 471 mm² at 25.1M per square millimeter. That is more than four times the transistor count at nearly double the density.

The execution resources scale accordingly. The HD 8970M offers 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the GCN 1.0 architecture. The TITAN Xp provides 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs on Pascal: exactly three times the shaders, TMUs, and ROPs. Clock speeds widen the gap further. The HD 8970M runs a base clock of 850 MHz with a 900 MHz boost, while the TITAN Xp runs 1405 MHz base and 1582 MHz boost. Combine triple the units with substantially higher frequencies and the theoretical outputs diverge dramatically: 2.304 TFLOPS FP32 for the HD 8970M versus 12.15 TFLOPS for the TITAN Xp, pixel rates of 28.80 versus 151.9 GPixel/s, and texture rates of 72.00 versus 379.7 GTexel/s. Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores.

Memory is another categorical difference. The HD 8970M carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), yielding 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN Xp carries 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus at 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective) for 547.6 GB/s, more than three and a half times the bandwidth and three times the capacity. The TITAN Xp also has a notably weak FP16 story at 189.8 GFLOPS with 1:64 rate conversion; the HD 8970M records no FP16 figure.

Software support favors the newer part as well. The TITAN Xp lists DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8970M lists DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both report OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

For any workload where the database has comparable measurements, the TITAN Xp is the clear choice. The Geekbench OpenCL result, 72585 versus 21237, is the only direct head-to-head, and the TITAN Xp wins it by 70.7 percent. Its broader benchmark coverage, including strong PassMark G3D and GPU compute results, confirms that this is not an isolated anomaly. Users needing compute throughput, memory capacity, or bandwidth should treat the two as belonging to different classes despite their adjacent percentile rankings.

The case for the HD 8970M rests entirely on its form factor and platform fit. It is an MXM module intended for portable devices with display output described as portable-device dependent, whereas the TITAN Xp is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide, requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector and a suggested 600 W PSU. The HD 8970M's 100 W TDP is the entire envelope it needs, less than half of the TITAN Xp's 250 W. If the question is which GPU drops into an existing laptop-class platform, the answer is the HD 8970M by default. In every measured performance dimension, the TITAN Xp dominates.

Specification Differences

The specifications below are the fields where the two GPUs differ; everything material diverges, which is itself the summary.

• Chip and architecture: Neptune, GCN 1.0 (HD 8970M) versus GP102, Pascal (TITAN Xp)
• Generation: Solar System (HD 8900M) versus GeForce 10
• Process node: 28 nm versus 16 nm, both on TSMC
• Transistors and die: 2,800 million on 212 mm² (13.2M/mm²) versus 11,800 million on 471 mm² (25.1M/mm²)
• Clocks: 850 MHz base, 900 MHz boost versus 1405 MHz base, 1582 MHz boost; memory at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) versus 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5, 256-bit, 153.6 GB/s versus 12 GB GDDR5X, 384-bit, 547.6 GB/s
• Shading units, TMUs, ROPs: 1280 / 80 / 32 versus 3840 / 240 / 96
• Theoretical rates: 2.304 TFLOPS FP32, 28.80 GPixel/s, 72.00 GTexel/s versus 12.15 TFLOPS FP32, 151.9 GPixel/s, 379.7 GTexel/s; the TITAN Xp additionally lists FP16 at 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP and form factor: 100 W MXM module versus 250 W dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU
• Dimensions: unspecified versus 267 mm length, 112 mm height, 40 mm width
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170 versus DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4; OpenGL 4.6 on both
• Release dates: May 13, 2013 versus April 5, 2017; both are end-of-life
• Lineage: predecessor London, successor Gem System versus predecessor GeForce 900, successor GeForce 20
• Launch MSRP: not recorded for the HD 8970M; the TITAN Xp carried a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN Xp. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 72585 against the HD 8970M's 21237, a 70.7 percent advantage for the TITAN Xp. That is the sole head-to-head test in the database, and the overall wins tally is one to zero in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: How do their overall database rankings compare?

A: The HD 8970M sits in the 66th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 21237, while the TITAN Xp sits in the 64th percentile with an average score of 19177. The averages are computed over different test sets, so the near-identical percentiles mask the large per-test gap visible in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Which rivals does each GPU perform closest to?

A: The HD 8970M's closest rivals are the RX Vega M GL (0.4 percent behind it), the RTX A4000 Mobile (0.7 percent ahead), the GeForce RTX 5050 (1 percent behind), and the Quadro RTX 5000 (1.8 percent ahead). The TITAN Xp leads all four of its nearest rivals: the GTX 780 (0.1 percent), Tesla K20m (0.5 percent), GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (0.7 percent), and Radeon RX 6600 (0.7 percent).

Q: How large is the raw compute difference on paper?

A: Very large. The TITAN Xp's FP32 throughput is 12.15 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS for the HD 8970M, its pixel rate is 151.9 versus 28.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 379.7 versus 72.00 GTexel/s. It triples the shading units (3840 versus 1280), TMUs (240 versus 80), and ROPs (96 versus 32) while running considerably higher clocks.

Q: Do these GPUs target the same platform?

A: No. The HD 8970M is a 100 W MXM module for portable devices, with display output dependent on the host device. The TITAN Xp is a 250 W dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length, requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector and a suggested 600 W PSU.

Q: What memory configuration does each have?

A: The HD 8970M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN Xp has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 547.6 GB/s of bandwidth, giving it three times the capacity and well over three times the throughput.