AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single shared benchmark between the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696. This gives the AMD card a decisive win with a delta of 86.7%. That is nearly double the score of the older NVIDIA card. The result is not close; the W6800X holds a commanding lead in this compute-oriented workload.

Beyond the single head-to-head test, the aggregate benchmark averages reinforce the gap. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has an average benchmark score of 160,671 across its recorded tests, which places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 72,098, landing in the 91st percentile. The difference in average scores is roughly 122% in favor of the AMD card when comparing the two directly.

The AMD card also records a Geekbench Metal score of 196,844, a test the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal does not have a recorded result for. The NVIDIA card instead has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 77,499, a test the AMD card lacks. These asymmetrical test profiles mean the direct comparison is limited, but the OpenCL result provides a clear point of reference for raw compute performance.

For context, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X sits within 1.1% of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB in average score, and within 2.6% of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M. These nearest-rival comparisons show that the W6800X is competing with modern professional accelerators, while the TITAN X Pascal is grouped with mid-range and older workstation parts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 7 nm versus 16 nm. The AMD card integrates 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, while the NVIDIA card integrates 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. Transistor density works out to 51.5 million per mm² for the AMD card versus 25.1 million per mm² for the NVIDIA card.

The memory subsystems differ considerably. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X ships with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s. The AMD card has more capacity and higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus, thanks to faster memory clocks: 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective versus 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective.

Compute resources also diverge. The AMD card has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 raster output pipelines, and 60 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The AMD card includes support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA card is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds favor the AMD card as well: base 1800 MHz versus 1417 MHz, boost 2087 MHz versus 1531 MHz. Pixel rate for the AMD card is 200.4 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. Texture rate is 500.9 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows a wide gap: the AMD card delivers 16.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.06 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the NVIDIA card delivers 10.97 TFLOPS FP32 and only 171.5 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X wins in every metric where both have recorded data. The OpenCL benchmark shows an 86.7% advantage. The architecture provides more than double the FP16 throughput, a feature relevant for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The 32 GB memory capacity is four times larger than the NVIDIA card's 12 GB, which matters for large datasets, rendering scenes, or compute buffers that exceed 12 GB. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is higher than the 480.4 GB/s of the NVIDIA card. The AMD card also has ray tracing cores, which the NVIDIA card lacks entirely, meaning hardware-accelerated ray tracing is available on the AMD card but not on the older NVIDIA part.

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantages are structural rather than performance-based: it uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, has dual-slot cooling, and uses conventional 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The AMD card uses an Apple MPX bus interface and power connector, and is a quad-slot card. The NVIDIA card is also shorter in height (112 mm versus 120 mm) and has a defined width of 40 mm, whereas the AMD card has no recorded width. The NVIDIA card includes a DVI output, which the AMD card does not have. For systems that require legacy display connectivity or standard PCIe installation, the TITAN X Pascal holds an edge in compatibility, not in raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696. The AMD card is 86.7% faster in this test.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X memory.

Q: Does the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal support ray tracing?

A: No. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has no ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has 60 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the process node for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X uses a 7 nm process, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses a 16 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has an average benchmark score of 160,671, and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has an average benchmark score of 72,098.

Q: What DirectX version does each card support?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X outperforms the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal in the only shared benchmark by a wide margin, holds a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs. The AMD card also offers more memory, higher bandwidth, faster clocks, greater compute throughput, and ray tracing support. For applications that leverage these features, the AMD card is the stronger choice.

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal remains relevant only in specific contexts. It uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, requires conventional power connectors, and occupies a dual-slot form factor. It also includes a DVI output. For legacy systems or installations where the Apple MPX interface and quad-slot design of the AMD card are not viable, the TITAN X Pascal can still function. However, its performance envelope is considerably lower, and its 12 GB memory capacity will limit workloads that the 32 GB AMD card can handle without issue.

Neither card is in production; both are marked end-of-life. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X had a launch MSRP of 2,799 USD, and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal had a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. The price difference reflects the generational gap in capability, but the benchmark results show that the AMD card delivers a substantially higher level of performance across the board.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W6800X | NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.5M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1800 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2087 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 1251 MHz, 10 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 480.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 240 | 224 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 60 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 200.4 GPixel/s | 147.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 500.9 GTexel/s | 342.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.03 TFLOPS | 10.97 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.06 TFLOPS (2:1) | 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 200 W | 250 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not recorded | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |