AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 represent two distinct high-end designs from the same era, but the recorded data shows a clear performance leader. The TITAN X Pascal wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with its largest advantage appearing in Vulkan workloads. Meanwhile, the RX Vega 64 counters with higher theoretical compute figures, a wider memory bus, and a different architectural approach to parallelism. The following analysis breaks down the strengths of each card strictly from the recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal records an average benchmark score of 72,098, placing it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 averages 50,001, which puts it in the 86th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RX Vega 64 scores 67,032. This represents a 15.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card, its largest win in the head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance?

A: The TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 in Geekbench OpenCL, and the RX Vega 64 scores 62,552. The NVIDIA card leads by 6.6% in this test.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, compared to the TITAN X Pascal’s 3,584 shading units and 224 TMUs. The AMD card also has a higher FP32 throughput at 12.66 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 483.8 GB/s. The Vega card has a slightly higher bandwidth despite less capacity.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal outputs 147.0 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the RX Vega 64’s 98.94 GPixel/s. This indicates a strong advantage for the NVIDIA card in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip built on TSMC’s 16 nm process, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. Transistor counts are close, with the NVIDIA chip at 11,800 million and the AMD chip at 12,500 million, but the die sizes differ: 471 mm² for the TITAN X Pascal and 495 mm² for the RX Vega 64. Transistor density is nearly identical at 25.1M per mm² for NVIDIA and 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

The architecture generations diverge significantly. NVIDIA employs Pascal, while AMD uses GCN 5.0. This is reflected in their compute feature sets. The TITAN X Pascal has a FP16 rate of 171.5 GFLOPS, which is a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 output. The RX Vega 64, by contrast, delivers 25.33 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, indicating a much stronger half-precision capability. Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware additions.

The memory systems are fundamentally different. The TITAN X Pascal pairs 12 GB of GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus, while the RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on an extremely wide 2048-bit bus. The effective memory clock rates also differ: the NVIDIA card runs at 10 Gbps effective, and the AMD card at 1890 Mbps effective. Despite this, the resulting bandwidths are nearly equal, at 480.4 GB/s for NVIDIA and 483.8 GB/s for AMD.

The RX Vega 64 has a higher raw compute configuration. It carries 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, versus 3,584 shading units and 224 TMUs for the TITAN X Pascal. However, the NVIDIA card has more ROPs: 96 versus 64. The texture rate favors AMD at 395.8 GTexel/s, but the pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 147.0 GPixel/s. Clock speeds are also different, with the TITAN X Pascal boosting to 1531 MHz and the RX Vega 64 boosting to 1546 MHz, though the base clocks are 1417 MHz and 1247 MHz respectively.

Power and connectivity differ as well. The TITAN X Pascal has a TDP of 250 W and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin power connector. The RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W and requires two 8-pin connectors. Both cards suggest a 600 W power supply. The NVIDIA card includes a DVI output alongside HDMI 2.0 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card omits DVI and uses HDMI 2.0b with three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. API support is similar, with both supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the TITAN X Pascal supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX Vega 64 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins both. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the TITAN X Pascal at 66,696 and the RX Vega 64 at 62,552. This gives the NVIDIA card a 6.6% lead. The margin is modest but consistent, indicating that the TITAN X Pascal’s lower shading unit count does not translate into a disadvantage in this workload.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a much larger gap. The TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499, while the RX Vega 64 scores 67,032. That is a 15.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card. Vulkan performance often favors architectural efficiency over raw compute throughput, which may explain why the TITAN X Pascal’s lower FP32 peak still results in a substantial win. The RX Vega 64’s higher theoretical FP32 of 12.66 TFLOPS does not appear to yield an advantage in this API.

The overall wins tally confirms the trend: the TITAN X Pascal records 2 wins and the RX Vega 64 records 0 wins. The average benchmark scores align with this outcome. The TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098, which is 44.2% higher than the RX Vega 64’s 50,001. The RX Vega 64’s nearest rival comparisons show it grouping with cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, which scores 49,957 with a 0.1% delta, and the Intel Arc A550M at 49,737 with a 0.5% delta. The TITAN X Pascal, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379 with a -0.4% delta, and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73,370 with a -1.7% delta.

These results indicate that the TITAN X Pascal is the stronger performer in the tested scenarios. Its wins are not marginal in the Vulkan test, where it enjoys a double-digit lead. The RX Vega 64’s higher shading unit count and FP32 rate do not translate into benchmark victories, suggesting that driver optimization or architectural overhead plays a role in the measured outcomes.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 16 nm for the TITAN X Pascal and 14 nm for the RX Vega 64. Transistor counts are 11,800 million versus 12,500 million, and die sizes are 471 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is nearly equal, at 25.1M per mm² for NVIDIA and 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds show a split: the TITAN X Pascal has a higher base clock of 1417 MHz versus 1247 MHz, but the RX Vega 64 has a slightly higher boost clock of 1546 MHz versus 1531 MHz. Memory clocks differ substantially, with the NVIDIA card at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) and the AMD card at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). Memory capacity is 12 GB versus 8 GB, and the bus widths are 384-bit versus 2048-bit. Bandwidth is close, at 480.4 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s.

Compute resources diverge: shading units are 3,584 versus 4,096, TMUs are 224 versus 256, and ROPs are 96 versus 64. The FP32 output is 10.97 TFLOPS versus 12.66 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is dramatically different, at 171.5 GFLOPS versus 25.33 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 147.0 GPixel/s versus 98.94 GPixel/s, while texture rate is 342.9 GTexel/s versus 395.8 GTexel/s.

The TDP is 250 W for the NVIDIA card and 295 W for the AMD card. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 600 W for both. The NVIDIA card measures 267 mm in length, while the AMD card is 280 mm. Heights are nearly identical at 112 mm versus 111 mm, and widths match at 40 mm. The display outputs differ, with the TITAN X Pascal offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX Vega 64 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Vulkan support is 1.4 for NVIDIA and 1.3 for AMD.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users prioritizing raw benchmark performance. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins both head-to-head tests, with a 6.6% lead in OpenCL and a 15.6% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 72,098 places it in the 91st percentile, well above the RX Vega 64’s 86th percentile and average of 50,001. For applications that rely on Vulkan or OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal is the stronger option.

The RX Vega 64 does have advantages in theoretical specifications. It offers more shading units, more TMUs, higher FP32 throughput, and significantly higher FP16 performance. Its memory bandwidth is marginally higher, and it uses a faster boost clock. However, these advantages do not appear in the recorded benchmark results. The card’s lower average score and zero head-to-head wins indicate that its architectural strengths are not translating into real-world performance in the tested scenarios.

Users who work with half-precision compute might prefer the RX Vega 64 for its 25.33 TFLOPS FP16 rate, which is far above the TITAN X Pascal’s 171.5 GFLOPS. Those who need more memory capacity will favor the TITAN X Pascal’s 12 GB versus 8 GB. The NVIDIA card also has a lower TDP of 250 W versus 295 W and requires fewer power connectors, making it easier to integrate into existing systems.

For general high-end gaming and compute, the benchmark data favors the TITAN X Pascal without qualification. The RX Vega 64 remains a capable card, as its nearest rival comparisons show it grouping with modern GPUs like the RTX 5070 Ti and RX 6900 XT, but it does not challenge the TITAN X Pascal in the recorded tests. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the TITAN X Pascal delivers superior performance in the measured workloads, while the RX Vega 64 offers alternative strengths in raw compute specifications that are not reflected in its benchmark scores.