AMD Radeon RX 7700S vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The TITAN X, a 28 nm Maxwell 2.0 flagship from 2015, was built for maximum desktop throughput, while the RX 7700S is a 6 nm RDNA 3.0 mobile part from 2023, engineered for efficiency within a laptop power envelope. The benchmark data shows a fascinating split: the older NVIDIA card wins the Vulkan test, while the newer AMD card dominates OpenCL, leaving each with one victory in the head-to-head comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X secures its win in the Vulkan API, a modern cross-platform graphics standard. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 49,397 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 7700S by a significant 35.8%. This suggests that in Vulkan-based titles and workloads, the TITAN X’s raw graphics pipeline—backed by 3072 shading units and a 384-bit memory bus—still delivers substantial throughput. The data indicates that the older card’s high fill rate (104.5 GPixel/s) and texture rate (209.1 GTexel/s) provide a solid foundation for compute-in-graphics tasks, even against a much newer architecture.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon RX 7700S takes the OpenCL crown, which is a general-purpose compute API. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 62,983 is a massive 34.2% higher than the TITAN X's 41,471. This win is driven by the RDNA 3.0 architecture’s emphasis on parallel compute, with 20.48 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and dedicated 32 ray accelerators. For workloads that leverage OpenCL—such as video encoding, physics simulations, or cryptocurrency mining—the RX 7700S is the clear choice. The data points to a scenario where the TITAN X excels in driver-optimized legacy graphics APIs, while the RX 7700S is the better all-round compute engine.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The TITAN X uses the GM200 chip on a massive 601 mm² die, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. This large die houses 8,000 million transistors, but the older process node results in a relatively low transistor density of 13.3M per mm². In contrast, the RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip, which is far smaller at 204 mm² but packs 13,300 million transistors onto a 6 nm process, achieving a density of 65.2M per mm²—nearly five times higher. This efficiency gap is reflected in power consumption: the TITAN X has a 250 W TDP, while the RX 7700S sips just 100 W.

Memory architectures also diverge sharply. The TITAN X features 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, which still manages 288.0 GB/s due to faster memory clocks. While the TITAN X has more memory and wider bandwidth, the RX 7700S compensates with faster effective speeds (18 Gbps vs 7 Gbps). Feature-wise, the RX 7700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RX 7700S also includes 32 ray accelerators, a hardware feature absent from the Maxwell-based TITAN X, which has no dedicated ray tracing cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark tests available are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and they tell opposing stories. Starting with OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 7700S posts a score of 62,983 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X's 41,471. The delta is -34.2% from the perspective of the NVIDIA card, meaning the AMD part is 34.2% faster. This is a decisive victory for the RX 7700S, underscoring the compute advantage of RDNA 3.0’s dual-issue FP32 units and higher clock speeds. The RX 7700S boosts up to 2500 MHz, compared to the TITAN X’s 1089 MHz boost, which helps explain the massive FP32 throughput difference (20.48 TFLOPS vs 6.691 TFLOPS).

Switching to Vulkan, the tables turn. The TITAN X scores 49,397, while the RX 7700S manages only 36,380. The delta here is +35.8% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is surprising given the age difference, but it highlights the TITAN X’s robust driver maturity and its raw memory bandwidth (336.6 GB/s) which can be crucial for Vulkan’s low-level draw call handling. The RX 7700S’s lower score in Vulkan may be due to driver overhead or the architecture’s focus on compute over traditional rasterization in this specific test. Regardless, the data shows that the TITAN X remains a formidable Vulkan performer, beating a GPU that is 78th percentile versus the TITAN X’s 80th percentile in overall performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X has an average benchmark score of 36,530, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700S scores 33,849. This places the TITAN X at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 78th percentile for the RX 7700S.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700S is significantly ahead in OpenCL, scoring 62,983 compared to the TITAN X's 41,471. This represents a 34.2% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X wins the Vulkan test with a score of 49,397, which is 35.8% higher than the RX 7700S's 36,380.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The TITAN X has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.6 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X has a TDP of 250 W, whereas the AMD Radeon RX 7700S has a TDP of only 100 W.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 7700S includes 32 ray accelerators. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X does not have any dedicated ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X | AMD Radeon RX 7700S |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1089 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.6 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 7 Gbps effective | 18 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 192 | 128 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Accelerators | None | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 104.5 GPixel/s | 160.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 209.1 GTexel/s | 320.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.691 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

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

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

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2015-03-16 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | None |