AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 are two end-of-life workstation-class graphics cards from different architectural generations. The data shows a clear overall performance leader, but the comparison reveals more nuance when considering compute workloads, memory characteristics, and API support. Benchmark results indicate the TITAN X Pascal holds a consistent edge in the shared tests, yet the Pro Vega 56 offers distinct capabilities that may matter for specific professional tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has an average benchmark score of 72,098, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 63,693. This places the TITAN X Pascal in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 89th percentile for the Pro Vega 56.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 against 61,930 for the Pro Vega 56, a delta of 7.7%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 17.4%, with scores of 77,499 versus 66,004. The TITAN X Pascal wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two cards?

A: The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal has both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The TITAN X Pascal achieves 10.97 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Pro Vega 56 delivers 8.960 TFLOPS. However, the Pro Vega 56 offers 17.92 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio), whereas the TITAN X Pascal is limited to 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio).

Q: Do both cards support the same API versions?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The TITAN X Pascal supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 56 supports Vulkan 1.3. The TITAN X Pascal also has a display output for DVI, which the Pro Vega 56 lacks.

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 both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The Pro Vega 56 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two cards is fundamental. The TITAN X Pascal is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Pro Vega 56 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture, with the Vega 10 chip produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Transistor counts are close, with the TITAN X Pascal containing 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, while the Pro Vega 56 packs 12,500 million transistors into a slightly larger 495 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 25.1M per mm² for the TITAN X Pascal versus 25.3M per mm² for the Pro Vega 56.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The TITAN X Pascal runs at a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the Pro Vega 56 operates at 1138 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost. This clock advantage helps the TITAN X Pascal achieve higher pixel and texture rates: 147.0 GPixel/s and 342.9 GTexel/s, versus 80.00 GPixel/s and 280.0 GTexel/s for the Pro Vega 56.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The TITAN X Pascal uses GDDR5X memory clocked at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus. The Pro Vega 56 uses HBM2 memory clocked at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) on a much wider 2048-bit bus. Despite the wider bus, the Pro Vega 56’s lower memory clock results in less bandwidth: 402.4 GB/s versus 480.4 GB/s.

Shading units and texture mapping units are identical at 3584 and 224, respectively. However, the TITAN X Pascal has 96 ROPs, while the Pro Vega 56 has only 64. The FP16 capability is a stark contrast: the Pro Vega 56 offers 17.92 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the TITAN X Pascal is severely limited at 171.5 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 against the Pro Vega 56’s 61,930. This 7.7% advantage reflects the TITAN X Pascal’s higher clocks and greater memory bandwidth. The Pro Vega 56’s lower FP32 throughput and reduced bandwidth put it at a measurable disadvantage in this compute test.

The Geekbench Vulkan gap is even more pronounced. The TITAN X Pascal achieves 77,499, while the Pro Vega 56 manages 66,004, a 17.4% difference. This larger delta suggests that the TITAN X Pascal’s Pascal architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently, possibly due to its newer API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3) or its superior raw fill rates.

The wins tally is 2-0 in favor of the TITAN X Pascal. It wins both shared benchmark tests. The Pro Vega 56 has no head-to-head victories in the data. However, it is worth remembering the Pro Vega 56 has a Metal benchmark score of 63,145, a test that the TITAN X Pascal does not have, indicating different workload specializations in the broader benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node: 16 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistors: 11,800 million versus 12,500 million. Die size: 471 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density: 25.1M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm².

Clock speeds: base 1417 MHz versus 1138 MHz; boost 1531 MHz versus 1250 MHz. Memory clock: 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). Memory size: 12 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: GDDR5X versus HBM2. Bus width: 384 bit versus 2048 bit. Bandwidth: 480.4 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s.

Compute rates: pixel rate 147.0 GPixel/s versus 80.00 GPixel/s; texture rate 342.9 GTexel/s versus 280.0 GTexel/s; FP32 10.97 TFLOPS versus 8.960 TFLOPS; FP16 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) versus 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1). ROPs: 96 versus 64.

Power and physical specs: TDP 250 W versus 210 W. The TITAN X Pascal is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Pro Vega 56 is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Dimensions: 267 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm for the TITAN X Pascal; no dimensions listed for the Pro Vega 56.

Display outputs: TITAN X Pascal has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Pro Vega 56 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, no DVI. API support: Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Release dates: 2016-08-01 versus 2017-08-13. The TITAN X Pascal has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the Pro Vega 56 has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN X Pascal wins in every shared benchmark test, so its strengths are clear. It delivers 7.7% higher OpenCL performance and 17.4% higher Vulkan performance. Its memory subsystem is superior in both capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB) and bandwidth (480.4 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s). The higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s versus 80.00 GPixel/s) suggests better fill-rate-bound workloads, such as heavy rasterization. The 96 ROPs versus 64 ROPs reinforces this advantage in pixel processing.

The Pro Vega 56’s wins are more specialized. Its FP16 throughput of 17.92 TFLOPS is dramatically higher than the TITAN X Pascal’s 171.5 GFLOPS, making it the clear choice for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, common in certain machine learning and scientific compute tasks. The HBM2 memory, while lower in total capacity, offers a 2048-bit bus that may have advantages in specific access patterns. The lower TDP of 210 W versus 250 W means it consumes less power, and its IGP form factor allows integration into systems where discrete cards cannot fit.

The Pro Vega 56 also has a Metal benchmark score of 63,145, which is not available for the TITAN X Pascal. This indicates ecosystem-specific performance that may matter for macOS or Metal-based applications. Its 89th percentile ranking, while lower than the TITAN X Pascal’s 91st, still places it among capable GPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with margins of 7.7% and 17.4%, has a higher average score (72,098 versus 63,693), and sits in a higher percentile (91st versus 89th). For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the TITAN X Pascal is the superior choice. Its larger memory pool and higher bandwidth also make it more suitable for large datasets and texture-heavy workloads.

However, the Pro Vega 56 is not without justification. Its FP16 capability is essentially a different class, offering 17.92 TFLOPS versus the TITAN X Pascal’s negligible 171.5 GFLOPS. For developers or researchers targeting half-precision compute, the Pro Vega 56 is the only viable option between these two. The lower TDP and IGP form factor also make it a fit for power-constrained or space-constrained systems.

The choice ultimately depends on workload priorities. The TITAN X Pascal is the performance leader in all shared tests and the safer pick for general compute and graphics. The Pro Vega 56 wins specifically on FP16 throughput and power efficiency, making it a targeted tool rather than a general-purpose champion. The data does not support selecting the Pro Vega 56 for OpenCL or Vulkan performance, but it does justify its existence for specialized half-precision tasks and Metal environments.