AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload boundaries. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the margin tells the real story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6800 scores 121,808 against the TITAN X Pascal's 66,696, an 82.6% advantage. That is not a narrow lead; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute throughput. The W6800 also wins Geekbench Vulkan with 109,961 versus 77,499, a 41.9% gap. So for any compute-heavy task that scales across shading units or leverages modern API features, the W6800 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its profile suggests strengths that the data does not directly measure. It has a 384-bit memory bus versus the W6800's 256-bit bus, and its memory bandwidth of 480.4 GB/s is only 6.2% below the W6800's 512.0 GB/s despite having far less memory (12 GB vs 32 GB). The TITAN X Pascal also carries 96 ROPs, matching the W6800's 96 ROPs, which can matter for certain rasterization workloads. The recorded data does not include gaming frame rates or specific professional application tests, so any advantage here remains speculative. The database only shows two benchmark entries for the TITAN X Pascal, both of which it loses decisively.

The use-case split, therefore, is not about which card wins tasks; it is about which card's architecture remains relevant. The W6800 is a workstation card aimed at long-duration compute and large datasets, evidenced by its 32 GB GDDR6 memory and 60 ray tracing cores. The TITAN X Pascal is a first-generation Pascal compute card, end-of-life since its 2016 release, with no ray tracing hardware. For users running modern Vulkan or OpenCL workloads, the W6800 is the only rational pick. For legacy software that predates RDNA 2 optimizations, the TITAN X Pascal may still function, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the W6800.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 in OpenCL?

A: The W6800 scores 121,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696. That is an 82.6% advantage for the W6800.

Q: Does the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal support Vulkan?

A: Yes, both cards support Vulkan 1.4. However, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W6800 scores 109,961 versus 77,499 for the TITAN X Pascal, a 41.9% difference.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus. The W6800's capacity is 2.67 times larger.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The W6800 achieves 512.0 GB/s, while the TITAN X Pascal achieves 480.4 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the W6800's faster memory clock (16 Gbps effective versus 10 Gbps effective) gives it the higher bandwidth.

Q: How do these cards rank overall in the database?

A: The W6800 sits in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 135,396. The TITAN X Pascal is in the 91st percentile, with an average score of 72,098. The W6800's average score is 87.8% higher.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The W6800 has 3,840 shading units, while the TITAN X Pascal has 3,584. The W6800 also has 240 texture mapping units versus 224, and both have 96 ROPs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the most lopsided comparison. The W6800 delivers 121,808 points, which is 82.6% higher than the TITAN X Pascal's 66,696. This delta is massive, nearly doubling the older card's output. The reason is visible in the specifications: the W6800 pushes 17.83 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the TITAN X Pascal manages 10.97 TFLOPS. That is a 62.5% raw compute advantage, and the W6800's FP16 throughput of 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) dwarfs the TITAN X Pascal's 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). For any workload that uses half-precision arithmetic, the W6800 is over 200 times faster on paper, though the practical gain depends on software support.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap but still favors the W6800. The score is 109,961 versus 77,499, a 41.9% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose inefficiencies in driver overhead. The TITAN X Pascal's Pascal architecture, released in 2016, was designed for DirectX 12 (12_1), not the more modern 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature set that the W6800 supports. The W6800's RDNA 2.0 architecture includes 60 ray tracing cores, which may contribute to Vulkan performance in ray-traced scenes, though the benchmark does not specify workload composition.

The W6800 also wins on texture and pixel throughput. Its texture rate is 557.3 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s for the TITAN X Pascal, a 62.5% advantage. Its pixel rate is 222.9 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s, a 51.6% advantage. These metrics matter for fill-rate-bound tasks in visualization and rendering. The TITAN X Pascal's only spec where it does not lose decisively is memory bandwidth, where its 480.4 GB/s trails by just 6.2%, and ROP count, which is equal at 96.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except TDP and power connectors. Both draw 250 W and use a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power arrangement. Both are dual-slot cards with a 267 mm length. Beyond that, the differences are stark.

Memory: The W6800 has 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W6800 has 2.67 times the capacity and 6.6% more bandwidth.

Compute units: The W6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores. The TITAN X Pascal has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. The W6800 leads by 7.1% in shading units and 7.1% in TMUs.

Clocks: The W6800 has a base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost clock of 2322 MHz. The TITAN X Pascal has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The W6800's boost clock is 51.7% higher.

Process node: The W6800 uses TSMC's 7 nm process with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The TITAN X Pascal uses TSMC's 16 nm process with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The W6800 has a transistor density of 51.5M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm² for the older card.

Bus interface: The W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the TITAN X Pascal uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This doubles the theoretical bandwidth for data transfer to the host system.

Display outputs: The W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The TITAN X Pascal has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The W6800 is designed for multi-monitor professional setups.

Release dates: The W6800 launched in June 2021 with a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD. The TITAN X Pascal launched in August 2016 with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses RDNA 2.0 on TSMC's 7 nm node. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the Pascal architecture on TSMC's 16 nm node. The node shrink allows the W6800 to pack 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, while the TITAN X Pascal fits 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die. The density difference is 51.5M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm², which explains the W6800's higher clock speeds and compute throughput without a TDP increase.

The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing and mesh shaders. The TITAN X Pascal supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks those features. The W6800 has dedicated ray tracing cores (60 of them), while the TITAN X Pascal has none. This is a fundamental capability gap, not just a performance gap. For any modern game or professional renderer that uses DXR or Vulkan ray tracing, the TITAN X Pascal cannot participate.

The FP16 story is equally clear. The W6800 has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 35.67 TFLOPS. The TITAN X Pascal has a 1:64 ratio, delivering only 171.5 GFLOPS. This makes the W6800 suitable for AI inference and half-precision compute, while the TITAN X Pascal is effectively a single-precision-only card. The W6800 also supports Vulkan 1.4, matching the TITAN X Pascal, but with the underlying hardware capable of more modern workloads.

The memory architecture differs too. The W6800 uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 2000 MHz clock (16 Gbps effective). The TITAN X Pascal uses GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus and 1251 MHz clock (10 Gbps effective). The W6800's newer memory type allows it to achieve higher bandwidth on a narrower bus, freeing up die space for compute units. The TITAN X Pascal's wider bus is a legacy design choice from the Pascal era.

The Verdict

The data does not support choosing the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal for any recorded workload. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (135,396 versus 72,098), and sits in a higher overall percentile (96th versus 91st). The W6800 leads by 82.6% in OpenCL and 41.9% in Vulkan. It has more memory, more compute units, higher clocks, and a more modern architecture.

The TITAN X Pascal's only arguments are its lower launch MSRP (1,199 USD versus 2,249 USD) and its historical position as a Pascal-era flagship. But the database records no test where that lower price translates into a competitive result. The W6800's 32 GB memory capacity is 2.67 times larger, which matters for large datasets in scientific computing, machine learning inference, or high-resolution texture sets. The 60 ray tracing cores make it future-proof for upcoming software that leverages DXR.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the superior card in every measured category. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal should only be considered by users locked into legacy software that requires Pascal-specific quirks, and even then, the data offers no evidence of a performance benefit. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life products, the W6800's 82.6% OpenCL lead and 41.9% Vulkan lead are decisive. The TITAN X Pascal is a historical artifact; the W6800 is a functional workstation GPU that still competes at the 96th percentile of all GPUs.