AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear pattern: AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons against NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 98,432 against 66,696 for the NVIDIA card, a 47.6% advantage. That is a substantial gap, indicating the AMD card delivers considerably higher raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 99,296 versus 77,499, a 28.1% lead. While the Vulkan margin is smaller than OpenCL, it still represents a decisive win for AMD.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo sits at 106,750, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098. This means the AMD card holds a roughly 48% higher average score, consistent with the OpenCL delta. The AMD card also ranks at the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA card ranks at the 91st percentile. Both are high performers, but the AMD card sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

The nearest rivals data adds context. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X at 107,342 average score, a 0.6% difference. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379, a 0.4% difference. This shows both cards are tightly clustered with their immediate peers, but the absolute performance tier of the AMD card is far above that of the NVIDIA card. The Quadro RTX 6000, at 101,872 average, trails the AMD card by 4.8%, while the NVIDIA card falls behind even its own closest rival by a small margin.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo uses the Vega 20 chip built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 13,230 million transistors packed into a 331 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 40.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip on a 16 nm process, also from TSMC, with 11,800 million transistors on a larger 471 mm² die, giving a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is both smaller and denser, reflecting the newer process node.

Memory configurations differ dramatically. The AMD card features 32 GB of HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s. The AMD card offers more than double the memory capacity and roughly 2.1 times the bandwidth. Effective memory speed is listed at 2 Gbps for AMD versus 10 Gbps for NVIDIA, but the vastly wider bus on AMD compensates, resulting in the much higher total bandwidth.

Compute resources also diverge. The AMD card has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. AMD has more shading units and TMUs, while NVIDIA has more ROPs. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 147.0 GPixel/s versus 110.1 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate favors AMD at 440.3 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on AMD at 14.09 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS. FP16 is a stark contrast: AMD delivers 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while NVIDIA manages only 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), meaning AMD has a massive lead in half-precision performance.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The AMD card has a TDP of 475 W and requires a suggested 850 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card has a TDP of 250 W and a suggested 600 W PSU. The AMD card is a quad-slot design, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot. The AMD card uses an Apple MPX bus interface, whereas the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The NVIDIA card lists dimensions of 267 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width, while the AMD card does not list dimensions. Display outputs differ: AMD offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its advantages are most pronounced in OpenCL, where it leads by 47.6%. This suggests AMD’s architecture is particularly well suited to general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as scientific simulations, data processing, and certain rendering workloads. The Vulkan lead of 28.1% indicates strong graphics and compute performance in Vulkan-based applications, which are increasingly common in modern game engines and professional visualization tools.

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal does not win any of the recorded benchmarks, but it does have strengths that are not directly captured in these tests. Its higher pixel rate of 147.0 GPixel/s versus 110.1 GPixel/s suggests it may excel in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rasterization with heavy overdraw. Its 96 ROPs, higher than AMD’s 64, also point to stronger pixel throughput. The NVIDIA card’s smaller physical footprint, dual-slot design, and lower power draw (250 W versus 475 W) make it more practical for systems with limited space or power delivery, though the database does not quantify these as benchmark wins.

The use-case split is clear from the data: AMD wins on raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. NVIDIA wins on pixel fill rate and power efficiency per watt, but since no benchmark records efficiency, the data only supports the compute comparison. For workloads that rely on FP32 or FP16 compute, such as machine learning training or certain simulation tasks, the AMD card’s 14.09 TFLOPS and 28.18 TFLOPS are decisive. For tasks that are purely pixel-bound, the NVIDIA card’s higher pixel rate could be relevant, but no recorded benchmark confirms this advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo has 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has 10.97 TFLOPS FP32 and 171.5 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64). AMD leads in both.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The AMD card has 32 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus and 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD offers more capacity and more than twice the bandwidth.

Q: What are the benchmark score differences?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, AMD scores 98,432 versus 66,696 for NVIDIA, a 47.6% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, AMD scores 99,296 versus 77,499, a 28.1% lead. Average scores are 106,750 for AMD and 72,098 for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card is more power hungry?

A: The AMD card has a TDP of 475 W and a suggested PSU of 850 W. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. NVIDIA is significantly more power efficient.

Q: What physical size differences exist?

A: The AMD card is a quad-slot design with no listed dimensions. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Q: How do the cards rank among all GPUs?

A: The AMD card is at the 94th percentile, while the NVIDIA card is at the 91st percentile. The AMD card’s average score is about 48% higher than the NVIDIA card’s.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. Its 47.6% OpenCL lead and 28.1% Vulkan lead are substantial, and its average score advantage of roughly 48% places it in a higher performance tier. The AMD card also offers far more memory (32 GB versus 12 GB) and more than double the bandwidth (1.02 TB/s versus 480.4 GB/s), making it the better choice for memory-intensive workloads such as large dataset processing or high-resolution texture streaming.

However, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is not without merits. Its lower TDP of 250 W and dual-slot design make it far easier to integrate into existing systems. Its higher pixel rate of 147.0 GPixel/s suggests it may handle certain rasterization tasks better, though no recorded benchmark confirms this. For users with power constraints or space limitations, the NVIDIA card is the more practical option. For users who prioritize raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the AMD card is the clear winner.

The percentile data reinforces this: both cards are in the top 10% of all GPUs, but the AMD card sits higher. The nearest rivals for each card show they are both competitive within their respective tiers, but the tiers themselves are far apart. The AMD card’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 at 110,725 average score, which is still above the NVIDIA card’s average of 72,098. This means even AMD’s mid-tier rivals outperform the NVIDIA card in average score, though the NVIDIA card’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379, a close match.

Ultimately, the choice depends on workload. The AMD card is for users who need maximum compute throughput, large memory pools, and high bandwidth, and who can accommodate a 475 W quad-slot card. The NVIDIA card is for users who need a dual-slot, 250 W card with solid but lower compute performance, and who prioritize ease of installation and power efficiency over raw benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo | NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 13,230 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 331 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.0M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1400 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1720 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s | 480.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 256 | 224 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 110.1 GPixel/s | 147.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 440.3 GTexel/s | 342.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 14.09 TFLOPS | 10.97 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1) | 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 475 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Quad-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 850 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm length, 112 mm height, 40 mm width |

| Release Date | 2019-06-02 | 2016-08-01 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | 1,199 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 106,750 | 72,098 |

| Percentile | 94 | 91 |

| Wins in Head-to-Head | 2 | 0 |