AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and NVIDIA TITAN RTX occupy very different positions in the database, and the recorded benchmarks reflect that gap clearly. The Vega 56 is a 2017-era enthusiast card built on AMD’s GCN architecture, while the TITAN RTX is a 2018 workstation-class GPU from NVIDIA’s Turing generation. Their average benchmark scores, percentile rankings, and architectural specifications all point to distinct use cases, with the TITAN RTX holding a commanding lead in raw performance but the Vega 56 offering a more compact and power-efficient footprint. The data shows that these are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but comparing them highlights how far GPU design progressed in just over a year.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN RTX wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, by a substantial margin. It scores 3794 points against the Vega 56’s 1501 points, a delta of -60.4% from the AMD card’s perspective. This single result dominates the comparison, but the broader benchmark suite paints a more nuanced picture. The TITAN RTX has a much larger set of recorded tests, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and PassMark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute. The Vega 56 only has two recorded benchmarks: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Geekbench Metal. This means the TITAN RTX’s strengths are documented across a wider range of workloads, while the Vega 56’s profile is thinner.

In raw compute, the TITAN RTX is clearly ahead. Its FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 10.54 TFLOPS for the Vega 56, and its FP16 output is 32.62 TFLOPS versus 21.09 TFLOPS. The TITAN RTX also has dedicated RT cores and Tensor cores, which the Vega 56 lacks entirely. This makes the NVIDIA card the obvious choice for ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while the Vega 56 has no such hardware support. The Vega 56 does win in transistor density, with 25.3 million transistors per mm² versus 24.7 million for the TITAN RTX, but that is a manufacturing metric rather than a performance one. In terms of average benchmark score, the Vega 56 actually posts a higher number at 37507 versus 31676 for the TITAN RTX, though this is likely due to the different test sets each card was subjected to rather than true performance parity.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Vega 56 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on the Vega 10 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The TITAN RTX uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on the TU102 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts differ significantly: the Vega 56 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, while the TITAN RTX packs 18,600 million transistors onto a larger 754 mm² die. Despite the larger die, the TITAN RTX has a slightly lower transistor density at 24.7M per mm² compared to the Vega 56’s 25.3M per mm², which reflects the different design priorities and manufacturing nodes.

Memory configurations are also starkly different. The Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN RTX uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN RTX’s memory advantages are substantial: triple the capacity, 64% more bandwidth, and a newer memory type. The Vega 56’s HBM2 does offer a wider bus, but the effective bandwidth is still lower. Clock speeds favor the TITAN RTX as well, with a base clock of 1350 MHz and boost of 1770 MHz against the Vega 56’s 1156 MHz base and 1471 MHz boost. The TITAN RTX also has more execution resources: 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units, compared to 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Vega 56. The TITAN RTX adds 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores, features that have no equivalent on the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The TITAN RTX scores 3794, while the Vega 56 scores 1501, giving the NVIDIA card a 60.4% advantage. This is a massive gap and indicates that in modern DX12 workloads, the TITAN RTX is in a different class entirely. The Vega 56’s 1501 points place it far behind, and the delta of -60.4% from the AMD card’s perspective shows that the Vega 56 delivers less than half the performance of the TITAN RTX in this specific test.

Beyond the head-to-head, the database’s average benchmark scores offer additional context, though they must be interpreted carefully. The Vega 56 has an average benchmark score of 37507, which places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628 (a -0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37648 (-0.4%), the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37157 (+0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile at 38135 (-1.6%). This places the Vega 56 in a competitive mid-to-high range, trading blows with modern cards despite its age. The TITAN RTX, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 31676 and sits in the 76th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31532 (+0.5%), the Intel Arc Pro A30M at 31894 (-0.7%), the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31220 (+1.5%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 at 31206 (+1.5%). The TITAN RTX’s lower average score and percentile are surprising given its dominant head-to-head result, but they likely reflect the different benchmark workloads included in each card’s average. The TITAN RTX has more low-level PassMark tests recorded, which may drag down its average relative to the Vega 56’s narrower test set.

In terms of specific recorded benchmarks, the TITAN RTX shows strong results across the board. Its PassMark G3D score is 20491, its PassMark GPU Compute score is 10034, its Geekbench OpenCL score is 144858, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 136073. The Vega 56’s only non-head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench Metal at 73512. These numbers are not directly comparable due to different test APIs, but they do show that the TITAN RTX has been validated across a broader range of compute and graphics workloads.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the TITAN RTX for anyone prioritizing raw performance, modern feature support, or memory capacity. Its 60.4% lead in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test is decisive, and its 24 GB of GDDR6 memory with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth makes it far better suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or compute workloads that require substantial VRAM. The presence of 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores gives it capabilities the Vega 56 cannot match, particularly for ray-traced rendering and AI inference. The TITAN RTX also has a higher boost clock at 1770 MHz versus 1471 MHz, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher pixel and texture rates. Its pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 94.14 GPixel/s for the Vega 56, and its texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 329.5 GTexel/s.

The Vega 56 is not without its merits, but they are narrower. It has a higher average benchmark score in the database at 37507 versus 31676, and it sits in the 81st percentile compared to the TITAN RTX’s 76th. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4070 and RTX 4080 Mobile, which suggests it still holds up well in certain aggregated benchmarks. It also has a lower TDP at 210 W versus 280 W, a smaller physical footprint at 280 mm length versus 267 mm (though it is wider at 40 mm versus 35 mm), and a lower suggested PSU requirement at 550 W versus 600 W. For users with power or space constraints, the Vega 56 is the more practical option. Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory is sufficient for many gaming and compute tasks, and its 2048-bit bus provides 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is respectable even if lower than the TITAN RTX.

The choice ultimately depends on the workload. For maximum performance, memory capacity, and modern features, the TITAN RTX is the clear winner based on the recorded data. For a more power-efficient, compact card that still performs well in aggregated benchmarks, the Vega 56 is a viable alternative. The TITAN RTX’s launch MSRP was 2,499 USD, while the Vega 56’s was 399 USD, but the performance gap in the head-to-head test is far larger than the price difference would suggest. The Vega 56 is end-of-life, as is the TITAN RTX, so neither is a current-generation option, but the data shows the TITAN RTX remains the stronger performer.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN RTX is faster, scoring 3794 points versus 1501 points for the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, a difference of 60.4%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 support ray tracing or Tensor cores?

A: No, the Vega 56 has no RT cores or Tensor cores. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX has 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The Vega 56 has 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Vega 56 has a higher average benchmark score at 37507, compared to 31676 for the TITAN RTX. The Vega 56 also sits in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN RTX is in the 76th.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Vega 56 has a TDP of 210 W and requires a 550 W power supply. The TITAN RTX has a TDP of 280 W and requires a 600 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more shading units and higher clock speeds?

A: The TITAN RTX has 4608 shading units, a base clock of 1350 MHz, and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. The Vega 56 has 3584 shading units, a base clock of 1156 MHz, and a boost clock of 1471 MHz.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX:

• Chip: Vega 10 (AMD) versus TU102 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 5.0 versus Turing
• Generation: Vega (RX Vega) versus GeForce 20
• Process node: 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) versus 12 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 12,500 million versus 18,600 million
• Die size: 495 mm² versus 754 mm²
• Transistor density: 25.3M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm²
• Base clock: 1156 MHz versus 1350 MHz
• Boost clock: 1471 MHz versus 1770 MHz
• Memory clock: 1600 Mbps effective versus 14 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory type: HBM2 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 2048 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 3584 versus 4608
• TMUs: 224 versus 288
• ROPs: 64 versus 96
• RT cores: None versus 72
• Tensor cores: None versus 576
• Pixel rate: 94.14 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 329.5 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 10.54 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 210 W versus 280 W
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 600 W
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
• DirectX version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan version: 1.3 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 280 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width versus 267 mm length, 116 mm height, 35 mm width
• Release date: 2017-08-13 versus 2018-12-17
• Predecessor: Polaris versus GeForce 10
• Successor: Navi versus GeForce 30