AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs NVIDIA TITAN Xp Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a starkly one-sided picture in this pairing. The NVIDIA TITAN Xp wins every head-to-head contest recorded in the database, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 fails to claim a single victory across any shared benchmark. This is not a close contest, and the use-case split reflects that reality.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 is positioned for a very different workload environment. Its integrated form factor, described as IGP in the database, points to portable or space-constrained systems where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw compute. The Radeon Pro branding suggests professional validation, and the GCN 5.0 architecture with Vega 12 chip is designed for efficiency in compact deployments. The 75 W TDP is remarkably low, making it suitable for thin workstations where a discrete dual-slot card would never fit. For mobility-focused tasks like light 3D modeling, CAD previews, or general GPU-accelerated productivity on the go, the Vega 16 offers a functional baseline.

The NVIDIA TITAN Xp, by contrast, is a desktop brute-force solution. With a 250 W TDP, dual-slot cooling, and a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector requirement, it demands a full desktop chassis and a 600 W suggested power supply. Its 12 GB GDDR5X memory and 384-bit bus provide the capacity and bandwidth needed for large datasets, high-resolution texture work, and compute-heavy rendering tasks. The TITAN Xp generationally predates the Vega 16 by about 19 months, yet it utterly dominates in every measured metric. This is the card for uncompromising performance, not for portability.

The percentile data reinforces the gap, though with a nuance. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN Xp sits at the 64th. That may seem contradictory given the benchmark results, but it reflects the broader database distribution: the Vega 16 lands in a cluster where its average score of 23250 places it among mid-range parts, while the TITAN Xp's average of 19177 is dragged down by the inclusion of legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests where it scores poorly. The TITAN Xp's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 780 and Tesla K20m, both older architectures, which indicates its overall average is skewed by a wide test portfolio. In the specific tests where both cards were measured, however, the TITAN Xp is overwhelmingly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The NVIDIA TITAN Xp uses the GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 16 nm process. Despite the older node, the TITAN Xp achieves far higher performance through sheer scale: it packs 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The Vega 16's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its 1024 shading units versus the TITAN Xp's 3840 tell the story of a much smaller chip.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Vega 16 has 64 texture mapping units and 32 raster operations pipelines, while the TITAN Xp has 240 TMUs and 96 ROPs. Pixel throughput is 38.08 GPixel/s for the AMD part versus 151.9 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate stands at 76.16 GTexel/s versus 379.7 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating is 2.437 TFLOPS for Vega 16 and 12.15 TFLOPS for the TITAN Xp, a five-fold advantage.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Vega 16 uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN Xp uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 547.6 GB/s. The HBM2 implementation gives the Vega 16 a wider bus, but the GDDR5X on the NVIDIA card operates at a higher effective speed: 11.4 Gbps versus 2.4 Gbps. That difference, combined with triple the capacity, makes the TITAN Xp far more capable for memory-intensive workloads.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The Vega 16 runs at an 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost, while the TITAN Xp runs at 1405 MHz base and 1582 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card's memory clock is 1426 MHz, compared to 1200 MHz for the AMD card. FP16 performance is a notable reversal: the Vega 16 achieves 4.874 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the TITAN Xp manages only 189.8 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. For workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, the AMD architecture has a structural advantage, though the database does not include a shared FP16 benchmark to quantify this in practice.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and PCIe 3.0 x16. The TITAN Xp additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 16 is limited to Vulkan 1.3. The TITAN Xp's display outputs include 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the Vega 16's outputs are described as portable device dependent, consistent with its integrated nature.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmarks in the database are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both results are lopsided.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 18268, while the NVIDIA TITAN Xp scores 72585. The delta is 74.8 percent in favor of the TITAN Xp. That means the NVIDIA card delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute throughput of the AMD part. For any OpenCL-based application, whether it is physics simulation, image processing, or data analysis, the TITAN Xp provides a massive head start.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is nearly identical. The Vega 16 scores 21832, and the TITAN Xp scores 87180, a delta of 75 percent. The TITAN Xp is exactly four times faster in this API as well. Vulkan is often used in gaming and real-time rendering, and while neither card is marketed primarily as a gaming product, the result shows that the Pascal architecture handles modern low-level APIs with far greater throughput.

The average benchmark scores in the database tell a slightly different story because they include tests that were not run on both cards. The Vega 16's average is 23250 across three Geekbench tests, placing it at the 68th percentile. The TITAN Xp's average is 19177 across ten tests spanning 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, plus several Passmark tests. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 226 and Passmark DirectX 10 score of 119 are low, while Passmark G3D G3D (18750 and Passmark GPU Compute) (9430 are more respectable. The inclusion of legacy API tests drags the TITAN Xp's overall average down below the Vega 16's average, even though the NVIDIA card is decisively superior in every shared test.

The Radeon Pro Vega 16's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA P106-100 (average 23249, delta 0 percent delta, essentially identical to the Vega 16's 23250, the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273, delta 0.1 percent slower), the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23276, delta 0.1 percent slower), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 (23315, delta 0.3 percent slower). These are all close competitors to the Vega 16 in overall average score. The TITAN Xp's nearest rivals, by contrast, are the GeForce GTX 780 (19164, delta 0.1 percent behind the TITAN Xp's 19177, the Tesla K20m (19089, delta 0.5 percent behind), the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, delta 0.7 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036, delta 0.7 percent behind). The TITAN Xp leads all of its nearest rivals in average score, while the Vega 16 trails several of its nearest rivals by small margins.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN Xp scores 72585, which is 74.8 percent higher than the Radeon Pro Vega 16's 18268.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 16 win any benchmark against the TITAN Xp?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the TITAN Xp wins both, with no wins recorded for the Vega 16.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro Vega 16 have a higher percentile rank than the TITAN Xp?

A: The Vega 16 sits at the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN Xp sits at the 64th. This is due to the TITAN Xp's average score of 19177 being lowered by legacy Passmark tests, whereas the Vega 16's average of 23250 is based on a narrower set of Geekbench results.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN Xp has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 547.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports faster half-precision compute?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 16 delivers 4.874 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the TITAN Xp delivers 189.8 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. The Vega 16 has a structural advantage for FP16 workloads.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The Vega 16 is an integrated GPU with a 75 W TDP and no slot width, while the TITAN Xp is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested power supply.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 | NVIDIA TITAN Xp |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 815 MHz | 1405 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1190 MHz | 1582 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) | 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 1024 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 547.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 64 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 38.08 GPixel/s | 151.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 76.16 GTexel/s | 379.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.437 TFLOPS | 12.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) | 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 75 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2018-11-13 | 2017-04-05 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 1,199 USD |