AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 78,467 against the TITAN X Pascal’s 66,696, a 17.6% advantage. That is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput, reflecting the AMD card’s higher FP32 rating of 12.03 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card.

In the broader context of the database, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X holds an average benchmark score of 80,959, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs. The TITAN X Pascal, by contrast, averages 72,098, sitting in the 91st percentile. While both are near the top of the stack, the AMD part’s average score is roughly 12.3% higher, and its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995, -1.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, +1.4% delta) — show that it competes with much newer silicon. The TITAN X Pascal’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768, +0.5% delta), indicating it is closely matched with mid-range and older prosumer cards.

The head-to-head data shows only one win for the AMD card. No benchmark in the shared set favors the NVIDIA GPU. This is a clean sweep, though it is based on a single test. The OpenCL result is particularly relevant for compute workloads, as OpenCL is a cross-platform API used in scientific and rendering applications. The 17.6% delta is not a marginal difference; it suggests a clear performance tier separation in general-purpose compute.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X in OpenCL?

A: The AMD card scores 78,467 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 66,696 for the TITAN X Pascal, a 17.6% lead.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score overall?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X averages 80,959 across all benchmarks, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098. The AMD card sits in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs; the NVIDIA card sits in the 91st.

Q: What is the TITAN X Pascal’s closest competitor according to the data?

A: Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, which scores 72,379 with a delta of -0.4%. That is nearly identical performance.

Q: Does the TITAN X Pascal win any benchmark against the Radeon Pro Vega 64X?

A: No. In the shared head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the AMD card wins the only test. The wins tally is 1 for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, yielding 480.4 GB/s.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare in FP16?

A: The AMD card delivers 24.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the TITAN X Pascal delivers only 171.5 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio). The AMD card has a massive advantage in half-precision workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X outperforms the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal in the available benchmark. The 17.6% OpenCL lead is backed by a higher average score (80,959 vs 72,098) and a better percentile rank (92 vs 91). If the choice is strictly about compute performance, the AMD card is the pick.

However, context matters. The TITAN X Pascal is an older card with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, and it remains within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 in the database. Its nearest rivals are all AMD cards, which suggests that its performance class is well-established and widely matched. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, meanwhile, sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (within 1.4%), a far newer product. That placement indicates the Vega 64X punches above its generation.

For a builder choosing between these two specific cards, the AMD part wins on every measurable axis in this fact pack. The only reason to pick the TITAN X Pascal would be ecosystem familiarity or specific software preferences, but the benchmark data does not support a performance-based argument for it.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the TITAN X Pascal uses a 16 nm process from TSMC. The AMD chip, Vega 10, contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die; the NVIDIA GP102 contains 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (25.3M/mm² vs 25.1M/mm²).

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: the TITAN X Pascal runs at a 1417 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, versus 1250 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost for the AMD card. Memory differs sharply — the AMD card has 16 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth; the NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus and 480.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge. The AMD card has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA (147.0 GPixel/s vs 93.95 GPixel/s), while texture rate slightly favors AMD (375.8 GTexel/s vs 342.9 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput favors AMD (12.03 vs 10.97 TFLOPS), and FP16 is a landslide in AMD’s favor (24.05 TFLOPS vs 171.5 GFLOPS).

Physical specifications differ as well. The AMD card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 250 W TDP. The NVIDIA card 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, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. Display outputs also differ: the AMD card has portable-device-dependent outputs, while the NVIDIA card offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is built on GCN 5.0, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is built on the Pascal architecture, from the GeForce 10 generation. These are fundamentally different designs. GCN 5.0 is a compute-oriented architecture with a 2:1 FP16 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision data at twice the FP32 rate. Pascal, in contrast, uses a 1:64 FP16 ratio, which means half-precision performance is negligible — a clear sign that NVIDIA’s design targeted FP32 and gaming workloads.

The memory architectures reflect these priorities. AMD uses HBM2, a stacked memory design that delivers high bandwidth (512.0 GB/s) on a wide 2048-bit bus. NVIDIA uses GDDR5X, a more conventional memory type on a narrower 384-bit bus, achieving 480.4 GB/s. Both are close in bandwidth, but the HBM2 implementation is more power-efficient per byte.

Shader organization differs: AMD’s 4096 shading units are arranged in its GCN compute units, while NVIDIA’s 3584 shading units follow Pascal’s SM structure. The NVIDIA card has more ROPs (96 vs 64), which explains its higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s vs 93.95 GPixel/s). This suggests the NVIDIA card is better suited for fill-rate-bound tasks like traditional rasterization.

API support is mostly aligned — both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 17.6% OpenCL lead, higher FP32 throughput (12.03 vs 10.97 TFLOPS), and massive FP16 advantage (24.05 TFLOPS vs 171.5 GFLOPS) make it the clear choice for scientific computing, machine learning inference, and any workload that leverages half-precision arithmetic. The 16 GB of HBM2 memory also provides more capacity and slightly higher bandwidth (512.0 vs 480.4 GB/s), which helps with large datasets that exceed 12 GB.

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins in pixel-bound tasks. Its 96 ROPs deliver a 147.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, 56% higher than the AMD card’s 93.95 GPixel/s. This makes it better suited for high-resolution rasterization, where pixel throughput is the bottleneck. The NVIDIA card also has a higher boost clock (1531 MHz vs 1468 MHz) and supports Vulkan 1.4, which may enable newer rendering features.

The TITAN X Pascal also wins on physical integration. It is a standard dual-slot PCIe card with defined dimensions and display outputs, making it easy to install in a typical desktop. The AMD card is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, which means it is not a drop-in replacement for a standard GPU slot. If you need a card for a conventional PC build, the NVIDIA card is the practical choice.

In mixed workloads, the AMD card’s higher average benchmark score (80,959 vs 72,098) suggests it is the better all-rounder. The data shows a single head-to-head result, but that result, combined with the percentile ranking, points to AMD for compute and NVIDIA for rasterization. Choose based on your primary workload.