AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins both head-to-head tests, securing a 2-0 record against AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48. The most lopsided result comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499 against the Pro Vega 48's 57,653. That is a 34.4% advantage, the single largest margin in any shared test. The gap is substantial enough that it moves beyond minor architectural variance and into a different performance tier for Vulkan workloads.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card again takes the lead, posting 66,696 versus 53,757. The 24.1% delta is smaller than the Vulkan margin but still represents a commanding win. Notably, the TITAN X Pascal's OpenCL result is its weaker benchmark of the two, while the Pro Vega 48's OpenCL score is also its lowest among its three listed tests. This suggests the OpenCL gap is not an outlier but rather consistent with the overall performance hierarchy.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head outcome. NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098 across its two results, while AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 across its three. That works out to roughly a 20% overall advantage for the NVIDIA card. The Pro Vega 48 does have one test not shared with the TITAN X Pascal: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 69,010. This is its strongest result, but since the NVIDIA card has no Metal score in the data pack, it cannot be used as a comparative point.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the TITAN X Pascal sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro Vega 48 ranks at the 88th. The three-point percentile gap is modest, but the underlying scores tell a clearer story. The NVIDIA card's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379 average score, which is 0.4% above the TITAN X Pascal. The Pro Vega 48, by contrast, sits right next to the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0.3% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 0.3% higher). The fact that the Pro Vega 48's nearest competitors include a mainstream Intel workstation card and a flagship NVIDIA consumer card — both landing within 0.3% — shows how the AMD card clusters with very different products, whereas the TITAN X Pascal aligns with high-end AMD workstation parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip manufactured on TSMC's 16 nm process. AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. The process difference is small — 16 nm versus 14 nm — but the transistor counts are close: 11,800 million for NVIDIA versus 12,500 million for AMD. Die sizes are likewise similar, with the GP102 at 471 mm² and Vega 10 at 495 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical, 25.1M per mm² for NVIDIA and 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The TITAN X Pascal packs 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Pro Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and only 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card leads in every execution resource category, with 16.7% more shading units, 16.7% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. This ROP advantage shows up directly in pixel throughput: the TITAN X Pascal achieves 147.0 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s for the Pro Vega 48 — a 91% lead in raw pixel fill. Texture rate is also higher on NVIDIA at 342.9 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is where the two take completely different approaches. NVIDIA uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective), yielding 480.4 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, with memory at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), providing 402.4 GB/s. Despite the enormous bus width difference, the NVIDIA card still delivers 19.4% more bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 does have a capacity disadvantage — 8 GB versus 12 GB — which matters for large datasets.

Compute throughput numbers show a striking asymmetry in precision handling. The TITAN X Pascal delivers 10.97 TFLOPS of FP32 but only 171.5 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio. The Pro Vega 48 delivers 7.373 TFLOPS of FP32 but 14.75 TFLOPS of FP16, a 2:1 ratio. This means the AMD card is dramatically faster at half-precision work — roughly 86 times faster in FP16 than the NVIDIA card — while the NVIDIA card holds a 48.8% advantage in FP32. For workloads that leverage FP16, the Pro Vega 48 is the clear choice; for FP32-heavy tasks, the TITAN X Pascal dominates.

API support differs slightly. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. NVIDIA lists Vulkan 1.4, while AMD lists Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card also has a different display output configuration: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro Vega 48's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its integrated GPU (IGP) form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal leads in FP32 with 10.97 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, a 48.8% advantage. However, the AMD card wins decisively in FP16, delivering 14.75 TFLOPS versus just 171.5 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, achieving 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 402.4 GB/s. NVIDIA has both more capacity and more bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal was released on 2016-08-01, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 followed on 2019-03-18.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The TITAN X Pascal is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The Pro Vega 48 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dimensions listed and no power connectors.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 57,653 for the AMD card, a 34.4% advantage. The NVIDIA card also supports Vulkan 1.4, while AMD lists Vulkan 1.3.

Q: How does the Pro Vega 48 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Pro Vega 48's average score of 60,140 is within 0.3% of both the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347), and it is 2.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |

| Chip | GP102 | Vega 10 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 3,584 | 3,072 |

| TMUs | 224 | 192 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 147.0 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 342.9 GTexel/s | 230.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.97 TFLOPS | 7.373 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) | 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1251 MHz / 10 Gbps | 786 MHz / 1572 Mbps |

| Memory Bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | N/A |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | N/A |

| TDP | 250 W | N/A |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | N/A |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2016-08-01 | 2019-03-18 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | N/A |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. It wins both shared benchmarks, holds a 48.8% FP32 advantage, delivers 19.4% more memory bandwidth, packs 50% more ROPs, and reaches the 91st percentile among all GPUs versus the Pro Vega 48's 88th. For any FP32-heavy workload — gaming, traditional rendering, or general compute — the TITAN X Pascal is the superior choice. Its 12 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for large textures or datasets.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is not without its niche. Its FP16 throughput of 14.75 TFLOPS is orders of magnitude higher than the NVIDIA card's 171.5 GFLOPS, making it the better option for machine learning inference or other half-precision workloads. Its HBM2 memory, while lower in bandwidth, offers a different power profile with no external power connectors, and its IGP form factor suits portable or integrated systems. The Pro Vega 48 also supports Vulkan 1.3, which is current despite being one minor revision behind NVIDIA's 1.4.

The competitive context matters too. The TITAN X Pascal's average score of 72,098 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, meaning it trades blows with a high-end workstation card. The Pro Vega 48's 60,140 average puts it alongside the Intel Arc Pro A60 and RTX 4090 in the database, a curious grouping that reflects its mixed workload profile. Buyers seeking maximum FP32 throughput should pick the TITAN X Pascal without hesitation. Those with specific FP16 requirements — and who need an integrated solution — have a compelling reason to choose the Pro Vega 48. For everything else, the benchmark data favors NVIDIA decisively.