AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN and AMD Radeon RX 5500M in adjacent performance tiers, but their benchmark results tell very different stories. The RX 5500M wins all three head-to-head tests decisively, yet the GTX TITAN holds a slightly higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking. This is a clash between an old desktop flagship with a massive memory bus and a modern mobile chip with a much higher clock speed. For raw compute in modern API tests, the RX 5500M is the clear choice; for legacy desktop features and a wider memory interface, the GTX TITAN still has arguments in its favor.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon RX 5500M if you prioritize modern API performance. It leads the GTX TITAN by 83.7% in Geekbench Metal, 35.8% in OpenCL, and 71.9% in Vulkan. Its 7 nm process node and RDNA 1.0 architecture deliver a boost clock of 1645 MHz, which is nearly double the GTX TITAN’s 876 MHz boost. The RX 5500M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX TITAN is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN if you need the larger memory footprint or are working with older software. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the RX 5500M’s 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 224.0 GB/s. The GTX TITAN also has a higher average benchmark score of 14373 versus 13356 for the RX 5500M, and it sits at the 56th percentile versus the RX 5500M’s 54th. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avg score 14385, delta -0.1%), while the RX 5500M sits close to the AMD FirePro M6100 (avg score 13354, delta 0%).

Architecture Differences

The GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, packing 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die with a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm node, with 6,400 million transistors in a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5M per mm². This density difference is the core of the performance gap — the newer process allows the RX 5500M to run at far higher clocks while consuming less power.

Shader resources favor the GTX TITAN heavily. It has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer units, the RX 5500M achieves a higher pixel rate of 52.64 GPixel/s versus 49.06 GPixel/s, thanks to its 1645 MHz boost clock. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the GTX TITAN hits 196.2 GTexel/s, while the RX 5500M manages 144.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is nearly identical, with the GTX TITAN at 4.709 TFLOPS and the RX 5500M at 4.632 TFLOPS, but the RX 5500M adds FP16 support at 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) while the GTX TITAN has no listed FP16 throughput.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The GTX TITAN draws 250 W, needs a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses a dual-slot cooler with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. It measures 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 38 mm wide. The RX 5500M is an 85 W mobile part with no power connectors, no listed slot width, and no dimensions, since it is designed for portable devices. The GTX TITAN has fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the RX 5500M’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: They are nearly tied in FP32. The GTX TITAN scores 4.709 TFLOPS, and the RX 5500M scores 4.632 TFLOPS. The RX 5500M adds FP16 throughput at 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GTX TITAN does not list.

Q: Why does the RX 5500M win in Geekbench benchmarks despite having fewer shading units?

A: The RX 5500M’s higher clocks are the key factor. Its base clock is 1375 MHz and boost is 1645 MHz, versus 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost on the GTX TITAN. The 7 nm process also enables better efficiency, allowing the mobile chip to sustain performance within an 85 W TDP.

Q: Is the GTX TITAN’s larger memory bus an advantage?

A: Yes, in terms of bandwidth. The GTX TITAN has a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s, while the RX 5500M has a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s. The GTX TITAN also has more memory (6 GB versus 4 GB), which can help with large textures or datasets.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each card?

A: The GTX TITAN is in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5500M is in the 54th percentile. This places them in similar overall tiers despite the RX 5500M’s benchmark wins.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX TITAN supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the GTX TITAN, the closest is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (avg score 14385, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (avg score 14404, delta -0.2%). For the RX 5500M, the closest is the AMD FirePro M6100 (avg score 13354, delta 0%) and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (avg score 13376, delta -0.1%).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX TITAN is a desktop part from the GeForce 700 generation, while the RX 5500M belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series under the Navi Mobile generation. Process node differs: 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 7 nm for AMD. Transistor counts are close (7,080 million versus 6,400 million), but die size is dramatically different at 561 mm² versus 158 mm².

Clock speeds show the biggest divergence. The GTX TITAN runs at 836 MHz base and 876 MHz boost, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The RX 5500M runs at 1375 MHz base, 1448 MHz game clock, and 1645 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory configuration also differs: 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Compute resources are inverted relative to clocks. The GTX TITAN has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate favors AMD (52.64 GPixel/s versus 49.06 GPixel/s), while texture rate favors NVIDIA (196.2 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s). FP32 is nearly even, and FP16 is only listed on the RX 5500M.

Power and physical specs are completely different. The GTX TITAN has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 5500M has an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and no slot width or PSU suggestion. The GTX TITAN uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are fixed on the GTX TITAN and portable-device dependent on the RX 5500M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 5500M dominates all three shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 50,359 against the GTX TITAN’s 8,218, a delta of -83.7% from the NVIDIA card’s perspective. This is the largest gap in the comparison and reflects the RX 5500M’s modern architecture handling Metal workloads far more efficiently.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a closer but still decisive margin. The RX 5500M scores 38,725, while the GTX TITAN scores 24,873, a delta of -35.8%. This aligns with the near-identical FP32 specifications — the GTX TITAN’s 4.709 TFLOPS versus the RX 5500M’s 4.632 TFLOPS — but the RX 5500M still pulls ahead by over 13,000 points.

Geekbench Vulkan repeats the pattern. The RX 5500M scores 35,693, and the GTX TITAN scores 10,027, a delta of -71.9%. The GTX TITAN’s Vulkan support is limited to version 1.2.175, while the RX 5500M runs Vulkan 1.4, which explains part of the large performance difference.

The GTX TITAN has additional benchmark data that shows its overall standing. Its Geekbench Metal score of 8,218, OpenCL score of 24,873, and Vulkan score of 10,027 produce an average benchmark score of 14,373. The RX 5500M’s average score is 13,356, which is lower despite its head-to-head wins. This is because the RX 5500M’s benchmark list includes Passmark tests, where it scores 5,848 in G3D, 2,316 in GPU compute, and 414 in G2D — numbers that drag its average down.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins in every modern compute scenario. Its Vulkan score is 71.9% higher, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based games or applications. Its Metal score is 83.7% higher, which is critical for macOS or iOS-adjacent workloads. Its OpenCL score is 35.8% higher, covering most general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The 7 nm process and RDNA 1.0 architecture also give it a massive efficiency advantage, running at 85 W versus 250 W, making it the only viable option for laptops or compact systems.

The GTX TITAN wins in scenarios tied to its hardware resources rather than API optimization. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 384-bit bus provide 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 28.7% more than the RX 5500M’s 224.0 GB/s. This matters for workloads that exceed 4 GB of VRAM or require high-bandwidth memory access. Its higher texture rate of 196.2 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s gives it an edge in texture-heavy rendering. Its 48 ROPs also exceed the RX 5500M’s 32 ROPs, though the RX 5500M compensates with a higher pixel rate due to clock speed.

The GTX TITAN also holds an advantage in overall benchmark standing. Its 56th percentile rank and 14,373 average score are higher than the RX 5500M’s 54th percentile and 13,356 average. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404 — are all slightly above its average, but the GTX TITAN sits within 0.4% of these scores. The RX 5500M’s nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354, is essentially tied with it (delta 0%).

For a desktop builder with an older system, the GTX TITAN offers more memory and bandwidth at the cost of power and size. For a mobile user or someone running modern APIs, the RX 5500M provides dramatically better performance in the tests that matter most. The data does not support a single winner — it supports two different use cases.