AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X records an average benchmark score of 36,530, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo sits at 35,860. This puts the NVIDIA card 1.9% ahead of the AMD card in the nearest rivals data.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 41,471 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860. The head-to-head benchmark data shows a 15.6% delta in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 336.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X has 3,072 shading units and 192 TMUs.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each card?

A: The NVIDIA card achieves 104.5 GPixel/s pixel rate and 209.1 GTexel/s texture rate. The AMD card achieves 64.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 256.0 GTexel/s texture rate.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each product?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X is built on the GM200 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Duo uses the Capsaicin chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, also on 28 nm at TSMC, but contains 8,900 million transistors on a slightly smaller 596 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 14.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. NVIDIA pairs its 12 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 running at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) across a 384-bit bus. AMD uses 4 GB of HBM at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) across a massively wider 4096-bit bus. This explains the bandwidth gap: 336.6 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 512.0 GB/s for AMD, a 52% advantage for the AMD card in raw bandwidth.

Compute resources are split differently. The AMD card has 33% more shading units (4,096 vs 3,072) and 33% more TMUs (256 vs 192), but NVIDIA counters with 50% more ROPs (96 vs 64). This leads to contrasting theoretical peak rates: AMD leads in FP32 compute (8.192 TFLOPS vs 6.691 TFLOPS, a 22.4% advantage) and texture fill (256.0 GTexel/s vs 209.1 GTexel/s), while NVIDIA leads in pixel fill (104.5 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s, a 63.3% advantage). The AMD card also supports FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card has no listed FP16 capability.

API support shows slight variations. NVIDIA reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD offers DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card uses three 8-pin power connectors with a 350 W TDP and 750 W suggested PSU; the NVIDIA card uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector with a 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X scores 41,471 against the AMD Radeon Pro Duo's 35,860. The delta is 15.6% in NVIDIA's favor, which is a substantial margin for a single compute benchmark.

Context matters here. The AMD card's raw FP32 compute is 8.192 TFLOPS versus 6.691 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 22.4% theoretical advantage. Yet in the actual OpenCL workload, NVIDIA outperforms AMD by 15.6%. This suggests that the NVIDIA architecture extracts higher real-world efficiency from its compute resources, or that the benchmark favors NVIDIA's scheduling and memory access patterns despite AMD's wider memory bus and higher shading unit count.

The AMD card's average benchmark score of 35,860 matches its single OpenCL score exactly, since that is the only benchmark recorded for it. The NVIDIA card averages 36,530 across three tests: Geekbench Metal at 18,723, Geekbench OpenCL at 41,471, and Geekbench Vulkan at 49,397. The OpenCL result is the only point of direct comparison, and NVIDIA wins it decisively.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional perspective. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo sits 1% above the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (35,520) and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435), but trails the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529) by 1.8%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the RX 5300M (delta 0%), sits 0.7% above the T1000, and 1.9% above the Radeon Pro Duo itself. Both cards occupy the same 80th percentile among all GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. Process node and foundry are identical (28 nm, TSMC), but transistor count differs: 8,000 million for NVIDIA versus 8,900 million for AMD. Die size is close (601 mm² vs 596 mm²), but density favors AMD at 14.9M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm².

Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the AMD card lists no base or boost clock. NVIDIA runs at 1000 MHz base and 1089 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ radically: NVIDIA at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus AMD at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective).

Memory capacity is 12 GB vs 4 GB, a 3x advantage for NVIDIA. Memory type differs (GDDR5 vs HBM). Bus width is 384-bit vs 4096-bit, a 10.7x advantage for AMD in bus width. Bandwidth is 336.6 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s, a 52.1% advantage for AMD.

Compute units: 3,072 shading units vs 4,096, 192 TMUs vs 256, 96 ROPs vs 64. Pixel rate: 104.5 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 209.1 GTexel/s vs 256.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.691 TFLOPS vs 8.192 TFLOPS. FP16: not listed vs 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power draw: 250 W vs 350 W. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs 3x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 600 W vs 750 W. Both are dual-slot. Dimensions: NVIDIA is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, 38 mm wide; AMD is 277 mm long, 111 mm tall, with no width listed.

Display outputs: NVIDIA offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2. AMD offers 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (12_0). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.170. Release dates: 2015-03-16 for NVIDIA, 2016-04-25 for AMD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins the single head-to-head test, and it wins by a wide margin. The 15.6% OpenCL advantage translates into a 36,530 average score versus 35,860 for the AMD card. Both GPUs sit at the 80th percentile, but NVIDIA achieves that standing with a 250 W TDP and three benchmark results, while AMD needs 350 W and only one recorded test.

The specification sheet tells a more nuanced story. AMD's card has more shading units, more TMUs, higher FP32 compute, higher texture rate, and significantly more memory bandwidth. These are theoretical advantages that do not materialize in the actual benchmark. NVIDIA's card counters with more ROPs, higher pixel rate, more memory capacity, and lower power draw. The data indicates that NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture converts its resources into benchmark performance more effectively than AMD's GCN 3.0 does.

For buyers prioritizing compute performance, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice based on measured results. The AMD card's higher raw specifications do not translate into a benchmark win. For buyers prioritizing memory bandwidth, the AMD card offers 512.0 GB/s, but the NVIDIA card's 336.6 GB/s is sufficient to achieve the higher score. The launch MSRP difference — 999 USD for NVIDIA versus 1,499 USD for AMD — further reinforces the NVIDIA card's position, though pricing considerations are secondary to the performance data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins in the only measured benchmark category: Geekbench OpenCL. It also wins on memory capacity (12 GB vs 4 GB), pixel fill rate (104.5 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s), and power efficiency (250 W vs 350 W TDP). The NVIDIA card's 15.6% head-to-head victory is the dominant data point in this comparison.

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo wins on raw compute specifications. It offers higher FP32 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS vs 6.691 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (256.0 GTexel/s vs 209.1 GTexel/s), more shading units (4,096 vs 3,072), more TMUs (256 vs 192), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 336.6 GB/s). It also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, which the NVIDIA card does not list.

For workloads that scale with raw FP32 compute or texture throughput, the AMD card has theoretical advantages. For workloads that depend on pixel fill rate, memory capacity, or measured OpenCL performance, the NVIDIA card is superior. The absence of a Vulkan or Metal benchmark for the AMD card means those comparisons cannot be made from the data, but the NVIDIA card's Vulkan score of 49,397 and Metal score of 18,723 stand as reference points for its capabilities in those APIs.

The AMD card's nearest rival data shows it competitive with professional NVIDIA offerings (Quadro GV100) and mobile RTX parts, but the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X consistently edges it out in the only direct comparison available. Users who need the highest measured compute performance should select the NVIDIA card. Users who require the AMD card's specific feature set — wider memory bus, higher compute peak, FP16 support — should verify whether their workload benefits from those specifications, since the available benchmark suggests they may not translate to higher scores.