AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a remarkably one-sided story. Across the three shared tests, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins every single matchup, and often by margins that are difficult to characterize as anything other than dominant.

The most extreme discrepancy appears in Geekbench Metal, where the AMD card scores 54,302 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN's 8,218. That is a 560.8% delta — the AMD card is over six and a half times faster in this specific workload. This is not a marginal generational improvement; this is a complete redefinition of what the test measures. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the AMD card's RDNA 1.0 architecture was designed with modern compute-heavy workloads in mind, while Kepler's 2013-era design simply lacks the necessary feature support to compete meaningfully.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similarly dramatic gap, though slightly less extreme. The W5500 posts 42,021 against the GTX TITAN's 10,027, a 319.1% advantage. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards efficient driver overhead and modern hardware scheduling. The data suggests the RDNA architecture extracts far more performance per clock from the API than Kepler can manage, even though the GTX TITAN has significantly more raw shading units (2,688 vs 1,408).

The closest contest is Geekbench OpenCL, where the W5500's 45,615 beats the GTX TITAN's 24,873 by 83.4%. Even here, the AMD card is nearly double the score. OpenCL is the most neutral of the three APIs, and the fact that the gap narrows somewhat hints that the GTX TITAN's wider memory bus (384-bit vs 128-bit) and higher bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s) help it partially compensate for its architectural age. Still, a near-doubling of performance is not a moral victory.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the W5500 lands at 15,679 against the GTX TITAN's 14,373. That is roughly a 9% overall lead when averaging across all available tests, but this figure is heavily diluted by the GTX TITAN lacking scores for several of the PassMark tests. The head-to-head deltas are far more telling than the aggregate, since they directly compare identical workloads. The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning: the W5500 sits within 1.2% of cards like the Radeon RX 7700 and R9 370X, while the GTX TITAN trades blows with integrated graphics like the RX Vega 11 and the Intel Iris Xe MAX. That comparison alone explains why the W5500 holds a 58th percentile rank among all GPUs versus the GTX TITAN's 56th — a small but meaningful gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is vast, and the manufacturing data illustrates it immediately. The W5500 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX TITAN uses 28 nm — also TSMC, but from a completely different era of fabrication. This translates directly into transistor density: the W5500 packs 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, over three times the GTX TITAN's 12.6M/mm². The W5500's die is only 158 mm² with 6,400 million transistors, while the GTX TITAN sprawls across 561 mm² with 7,080 million. The GTX TITAN has more transistors in absolute terms, but the W5500 crams nearly as many into less than a third of the silicon area.

This density advantage shows up in clock speeds. The W5500 runs at a 1,744 MHz base and 1,855 MHz boost, while the GTX TITAN limps along at 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. More than double the clock rate on a smaller die explains why the W5500 can achieve 5.224 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the GTX TITAN's 4.709 TFLOPS, despite having roughly half the shading units (1,408 vs 2,688). The GTX TITAN's 224 texture mapping units and 48 ROPs sound impressive on paper, but they operate at nearly half the frequency.

Memory architectures tell a similar story of generational progress. The W5500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX TITAN counters with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, at 6 Gbps effective, for 288.4 GB/s. The GTX TITAN actually wins on raw bandwidth by 28.7%, but the W5500's newer memory type and higher per-pin speeds mean it needs fewer physical traces to achieve respectable throughput. The W5500 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX TITAN is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16 — a difference that matters for data transfer in compute workloads.

The feature sets diverge sharply as well. The W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX TITAN is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The W5500 also supports FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 10.45 TFLOPS, while the GTX TITAN has no FP16 path at all. Display outputs differ too: the W5500 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the GTX TITAN has two DVI ports, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2 — a reflection of its 2013 origins when DVI was still standard.

FAQ

Q: Why is the AMD card so much faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The W5500 scores 54,302 versus the GTX TITAN's 8,218, a 560.8% delta. The data indicates this is driven by architectural differences: the W5500's RDNA 1.0 architecture supports modern compute features and a 7 nm process with 1,855 MHz boost clocks, whereas the GTX TITAN's Kepler architecture is limited to 876 MHz boost and lacks contemporary API optimizations. The FP16 support (10.45 TFLOPS on the W5500) likely contributes to Metal's compute-heavy workloads.

Q: Does the GTX TITAN's larger memory bus give it any advantage?

A: The GTX TITAN has a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the W5500's 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX TITAN's 24,873 score is the closest it gets to the W5500's 45,615, suggesting the extra bandwidth helps narrow the gap. However, the W5500's GDDR6 memory at 14 Gbps effective compensates with higher per-pin speeds, and the overall performance still favors the AMD card by 83.4%.

Q: Which card has better driver and API support?

A: The W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The W5500's Vulkan version is newer and its DirectX feature level is higher (12_1 vs 11_0), which explains its massive 319.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Are these cards comparable in power efficiency?

A: The W5500 has a 125 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU and uses a single 6-pin power connector. The GTX TITAN has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and requires both a 6-pin and 8-pin connector. The W5500 delivers higher benchmark scores while consuming half the power, a direct result of the 7 nm process versus 28 nm.

Q: What do the percentile rankings mean?

A: The W5500 sits at the 58th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX TITAN sits at 56th. The W5500's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (within 0.8%) and the Radeon RX 7700 (within 1.1%). The GTX TITAN's nearest rivals are integrated graphics like the RX Vega 11 (within 0.1%) and the Intel Iris Xe MAX (within 0.4%), indicating it now competes with entry-level hardware.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 7,080 million |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1744 MHz | 836 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1855 MHz | 876 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 2688 |

| TMUs | 88 | 224 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.36 GPixel/s | 49.06 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 163.2 GTexel/s | 196.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.224 TFLOPS | 4.709 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 125 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2013-02-18 |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | 999 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior product in nearly every measurable way. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, delivers higher FP32 performance (5.224 vs 4.709 TFLOPS), has double the FP16 capability (10.45 TFLOPS vs none), consumes half the power (125 W vs 250 W), and does all of this in a single-slot form factor versus the GTX TITAN's dual-slot design. The W5500 also supports newer APIs, has more display outputs, and uses a more modern process node.

The GTX TITAN's only advantages are raw memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), more shading units (2,688 vs 1,408), and a wider memory bus (384-bit vs 128-bit). None of these translate into benchmark wins. The GTX TITAN's nearest rivals — integrated graphics like the RX Vega 11 — tell the real story of where this card sits in 2024. It is end-of-life hardware from 2013, and the data shows it has fallen far behind even entry-level modern solutions.

For anyone choosing between these two, the W5500 is the only rational pick. It was released seven years later (2020 vs 2013), and the data reflects that massive technological gap. The W5500's 58th percentile ranking versus the GTX TITAN's 56th might seem close, but the head-to-head deltas of 560.8%, 319.1%, and 83.4% demonstrate that percentile figures can be misleading when comparing across different benchmark suites.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins in every single benchmark category where both cards have results. Its most significant victories are in Metal (560.8% ahead), Vulkan (319.1% ahead), and OpenCL (83.4% ahead). These are the modern compute and graphics APIs that matter for contemporary workloads — 3D rendering, machine learning inference, video processing, and CAD applications. The W5500's FP16 support at 10.45 TFLOPS makes it particularly suited for half-precision compute tasks that are common in AI and scientific workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN wins nowhere in the benchmark data. However, its specification sheet suggests theoretical advantages in specific scenarios. Its 288.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 384-bit bus could theoretically benefit workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound and cannot fit within the W5500's 224.0 GB/s. Its 2,688 shading units and 224 TMUs provide raw parallel throughput that might help in legacy applications that are poorly optimized for modern architectures. Its 48 ROPs also exceed the W5500's 32, which could help in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The GTX TITAN also has the edge in physical connectivity for older displays — two DVI ports — which the W5500 lacks entirely. For anyone with legacy DVI-only monitors, the GTX TITAN avoids the need for adapters. Its dual-slot cooler and 250 W TDP suggest it was designed for high sustained loads, though the W5500's lower power draw means it can run in systems with smaller power supplies (300 W vs 600 W suggested).

But these are niche advantages. The W5500's wins are comprehensive and decisive. It is newer, faster, more efficient, and better supported. The GTX TITAN's era has passed, and the benchmark data confirms that the W5500 is the correct choice for virtually any modern use case.