AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X vs AMD Radeon Pro 570

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X and AMD Radeon Pro 570 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, with the former being a 2015 desktop flagship built on Maxwell 2.0 and the latter a 2017 mobile-oriented part for Apple systems on GCN 4.0. Their average benchmark scores—36,530 for the TITAN X and 33,207 for the Radeon Pro 570—place them just 10% apart overall, yet their individual test results diverge sharply. The TITAN X sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 570 lands at the 78th, making this a closer contest than their physical sizes suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins decisively, scoring 39,945 versus the TITAN X's 18,723, a difference of 53.1% in AMD's favor.

Q: What about OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X takes OpenCL with 41,471 points against 27,702 for the Radeon Pro 570, a 49.7% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Is Vulkan performance similar to OpenCL?

A: No—the TITAN X extends its lead in Vulkan, scoring 49,397 versus 31,974, representing a 54.5% margin, its largest win of the three tests.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The TITAN X features 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 570 has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus, giving the former a 3x capacity advantage.

Q: How do their process nodes compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 570 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the TITAN X uses TSMC's 28 nm node; the AMD chip packs 24.6 million transistors per mm² versus 13.3M for NVIDIA.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The TITAN X launched in March 2015 with a 999 USD launch MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 570 arrived in June 2017 with no listed launch price.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This large die measures 601 mm² and contains 8,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 570, by contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is far smaller at 232 mm² with 5,700 million transistors, but the newer node produces a higher density of 24.6M per mm².

Compute resources diverge accordingly. The TITAN X fields 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 570 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and just 32 ROPs—a 42% reduction in shaders and a 67% reduction in ROPs. These counts directly feed into throughput figures: the TITAN X delivers 6.691 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon Pro 570 manages 3.960 TFLOPS. Notably, the AMD card achieves a 1:1 FP16 rate at 3.960 TFLOPS, whereas the TITAN X lists no separate FP16 figure, reflecting Maxwell's lack of dedicated half-precision throughput.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The TITAN X pairs 12 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, producing 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 570 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 217.0 GB/s. Clock speeds are similar—both have a 1000 MHz base—but the TITAN X boosts to 1089 MHz versus 1105 MHz for the AMD, a minor 1.5% difference. The Radeon Pro 570 compensates with a 14 nm process for efficiency, drawing 150 W TDP versus 250 W for the TITAN X, and requires no power connectors as an IGP, while NVIDIA's card needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin and a 600 W PSU.

Feature support shows generational gaps. Both support DirectX 12, but the TITAN X reaches 12_1 while the Radeon Pro 570 only hits 12_0. OpenGL parity exists at 4.6, but Vulkan differs: the TITAN X supports 1.4 versus 1.3 for the AMD. Display outputs reflect their intended markets—the TITAN X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon Pro 570's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating its MacBook-oriented design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three Geekbench tests paint a split picture. In Metal, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 dominates with 39,945 points against the TITAN X's 18,723, a 53.1% delta. This is the largest margin in either direction across all tests. The AMD card's GCN architecture has historically performed strongly in Apple's Metal API, and this benchmark reflects that advantage clearly.

OpenCL flips the script. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 41,471 versus 27,702 for the Radeon Pro 570, a 49.7% lead. The TITAN X's raw FP32 throughput of 6.691 TFLOPS—nearly 1.7x the AMD's 3.960 TFLOPS—translates directly into this OpenCL result, where compute density matters more than API-specific optimizations.

Vulkan shows the TITAN X at its strongest. Its 49,397 score outpaces the Radeon Pro 570's 31,974 by 54.5%, the NVIDIA card's best relative performance. This suggests Maxwell 2.0's Vulkan driver implementation, combined with its higher TMU and ROP counts, provides a substantial edge in this API. The pattern is consistent: the TITAN X wins the two compute-oriented tests by roughly half, while the AMD card wins the one Apple-centric test by a similar margin.

Aggregating these results, the TITAN X claims 2 wins and the Radeon Pro 570 takes 1. The average scores—36,530 versus 33,207—favor NVIDIA by 10%, which aligns with the TITAN X's 80th percentile ranking versus the AMD's 78th. Nearest rivals confirm the close grouping: the TITAN X sits within 1.9% of the AMD Radeon Pro Duo and 1.7% of the Radeon PRO W6400, while the Radeon Pro 570 is within 1.1% of the NVIDIA T600 Mobile and 0.7% of the P104-100.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X | AMD Radeon Pro 570 |

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

| Chip | GM200 | Ellesmere |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1089 MHz | 1105 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.6 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 192 | 112 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 104.5 GPixel/s | 35.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 209.1 GTexel/s | 123.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.691 TFLOPS | 3.960 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | — | 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | — |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-16 | 2017-06-04 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload. For compute-heavy tasks in OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X is the unequivocal choice—it leads by 49.7% and 54.5% respectively, driven by its superior shading unit count, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. Its 12 GB memory and 336.6 GB/s bandwidth also provide a substantial buffer for large datasets. However, the card's 250 W TDP, dual-slot footprint, and external power requirements make it unsuitable for compact systems.

For Metal-based applications, particularly in Apple's ecosystem, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 is the better fit. Its 53.1% Metal advantage is decisive, and its 150 W TDP with no power connectors and IGP form factor means it integrates directly into portable devices. The 14 nm process yields higher transistor density and better efficiency, though it sacrifices raw compute and memory capacity.

The average benchmark scores—36,530 for NVIDIA versus 33,207 for AMD—suggest overall parity with a slight NVIDIA edge. The percentile rankings (80th versus 78th) reinforce this narrow margin. Neither card is suitable for modern high-end gaming given their end-of-life status, but for specific professional workflows, the choice hinges entirely on the API and platform in question.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 41,471 vs 27,702, a 49.7% advantage
• Vulkan rendering: 49,397 vs 31,974, a 54.5% advantage
• Memory capacity: 12 GB vs 4 GB, offering 3x the framebuffer
• Memory bandwidth: 336.6 GB/s vs 217.0 GB/s
• Raw throughput: 6.691 TFLOPS FP32 vs 3.960 TFLOPS
• Texture and pixel rates: 209.1 GTexel/s and 104.5 GPixel/s vs 123.8 GTexel/s and 35.36 GPixel/s
• DirectX feature level: 12_1 vs 12_0
• Vulkan API version: 1.4 vs 1.3
• Desktop connectivity: dedicated DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort outputs

AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins in:

• Metal performance: 39,945 vs 18,723, a 53.1% advantage
• Power efficiency: 150 W TDP vs 250 W
• Form factor: IGP with no power connectors vs dual-slot with 6-pin and 8-pin
• Transistor density: 24.6M / mm² vs 13.3M / mm²
• FP16 compute: 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1) vs no listed FP16
• Process node: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Physical footprint: no dimensions listed, designed for portable integration

The choice between these two is less about overall performance and more about environment. The TITAN X is a desktop compute monster that excels in cross-platform APIs, while the Radeon Pro 570 is a mobile-first part optimized for Apple's Metal framework. Users on macOS or in Metal-centric pipelines should favor the AMD; those on Windows or Linux using OpenCL or Vulkan will find the NVIDIA card substantially faster.