AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two directly comparable benchmark entries for this pairing, and both belong to the NVIDIA TITAN V. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN V posts a score of 157,265 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH’s 27,125, a lead of 479.8%. That is not a marginal edge; it is a difference of roughly fivefold in raw compute throughput as measured by the OpenCL workload.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar pattern. The TITAN V scores 152,117, while the Vega M GH scores 31,268, producing a delta of 386.5%. In both cases, the winner column is unambiguous, and the head-to-head tally stands at 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD. There are no reverse victories to analyze, no close calls, and no test where the AMD part pulls ahead.

What is more revealing is how each card sits relative to its own nearest rivals. The TITAN V’s average benchmark score is 34,355, which places it 0.4% above the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207) and 0.6% above the RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154). It trails the AMD Radeon HD 7970 by 0.5% (34,541) and the T1000 8 GB by 0.6% (34,561). These are tiny deltas, within a single percentage point, meaning the TITAN V is clustered with professional and workstation cards of similar aggregate performance. The percentile rank of 79 against all GPUs indicates that roughly a fifth of the database population scores higher on average.

The Vega M GH’s average sits at 29,197, which is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, delta 0%) and the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, delta 0.1%). It is 0.7% behind the Radeon RX 470 (28,996) and 1.1% behind the Radeon RX 6800M (28,874). In other words, the Vega M GH occupies a performance tier that is about 15% below the TITAN V’s average score (34,355 vs. 29,197), even though its percentile rank of 74 is only 5 points lower. That percentile gap is modest, but the raw score gap is substantial, and the head-to-head deltas amplify that disparity.

The implication is clear: in the two workloads where both cards were measured under identical conditions, the TITAN V does not merely outperform, it dominates by a factor of four to five. The database does not include DirectX, PassMark, or 3DMark results for the Vega M GH, so those comparisons cannot be made. But the available evidence points to a generational and architectural chasm, not a close contest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V wins with a score of 157,265 versus the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH’s 27,125, a delta of 479.8%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between these two cards?

A: The TITAN V scores 152,117 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Vega M GH scores 31,268, putting the NVIDIA part 386.5% ahead.

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

A: The TITAN V has an average benchmark score of 34,355 across all recorded tests. The Vega M GH has an average of 29,197. The TITAN V’s average is about 17.7% higher.

Q: How does the TITAN V compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The TITAN V’s average score of 34,355 is 0.4% above the RTX A1000 (34,207), 0.6% above the RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154), 0.5% below the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541), and 0.6% below the T1000 8 GB (34,561).

Q: What rivals cluster around the Vega M GH’s average score?

A: The Vega M GH’s average of 29,197 is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, delta 0%) and the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, delta 0.1%). It sits 0.7% above the Radeon RX 470 (28,996) and 1.1% above the Radeon RX 6800M (28,874).

Q: What percentile rank does each card hold relative to all GPUs?

A: The TITAN V ranks in the 79th percentile, while the Vega M GH ranks in the 74th percentile. Despite a 5-point percentile difference, the actual score gap is much wider.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon could hardly be more different. The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip built on Volta architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The die measures 815 mm² and packs 21,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 25.9 million per square millimeter. This is a massive, high-power desktop part designed for compute-heavy workloads.

The Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is 208 mm² with 5,000 million transistors, giving a density of 24.0 million per square millimeter. This is a compact, integrated-class GPU designed for portable devices, as its bus interface is labeled IGP and its slot width is IGP.

Architecturally, Volta introduces tensor cores, and the TITAN V carries 640 of them. The Vega M GH has no tensor cores at all. The shading unit count differs enormously: 5,120 on the TITAN V versus 1,536 on the Vega M GH. Texture mapping units number 320 against 96, and raster output units are 96 versus 64. These are not incremental differences; they are structural gaps in parallel processing capability.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 across a 3072-bit bus, delivering 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 across a 1024-bit bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s. Both use HBM2, but the TITAN V has three times the bus width and more than three times the bandwidth.

Feature support shows minor differences in API versions. Both support DirectX 12, but the TITAN V is at 12_1 while the Vega M GH is at 12_0. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan differs slightly: the TITAN V supports 1.4, the Vega M GH supports 1.3. The TITAN V also lists display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Vega M GH’s outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. Process node: the TITAN V is 12 nm, the Vega M GH is 14 nm. Transistor count: 21,100 million versus 5,000 million. Die size: 815 mm² versus 208 mm². Transistor density: 25.9M per mm² versus 24.0M per mm².

Clock speeds differ, but not as dramatically as the compute resources. The TITAN V has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz. The Vega M GH has a base of 1063 MHz and a boost of 1190 MHz. Memory clocks are similar in raw terms: the TITAN V runs at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective, the Vega M GH at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective.

Memory capacity and bus width are major separators: 12 GB versus 4 GB, and 3072-bit versus 1024-bit. Bandwidth follows: 651.3 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.

Compute rates show the scale of the gap. The TITAN V achieves 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Vega M GH achieves 3.656 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.656 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The TITAN V has roughly four times the FP32 throughput and eight times the FP16 throughput. Pixel rate is 139.7 GPixel/s versus 76.16 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 465.6 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The TITAN V has a TDP of 250 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The Vega M GH has a TDP of 100 W, is IGP form factor, has no power connectors listed, and no suggested PSU. The TITAN V measures 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Vega M GH has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates are close: the TITAN V launched on 2017-12-06, the Vega M GH on 2018-01-31. Both are end-of-life. The TITAN V has a launch MSRP of 2,999 USD, while the Vega M GH has no recorded MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V wins in every recorded head-to-head test, and the magnitude of those wins is the story. In OpenCL, it is 479.8% ahead of the Vega M GH. In Vulkan, it is 386.5% ahead. For any workload that stresses raw FP32 or FP16 compute, such as scientific simulation, deep learning inference, or heavy rendering, the TITAN V’s 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 provide a decisive advantage over the Vega M GH’s 3.656 TFLOPS in both precisions.

The TITAN V also wins on memory bandwidth. Its 651.3 GB/s is more than three times the Vega M GH’s 204.8 GB/s, which matters for large data sets, texture streaming, and compute kernels that are memory-bound. The 12 GB capacity versus 4 GB means it can hold larger working sets without spilling to system memory.

The Vega M GH’s only advantage is efficiency in a physical sense: it is an IGP with a 100 W TDP, no external power connectors, and no PSU requirement. It is designed for portable devices, not for desktop expansion. In the database, its wins are not benchmark victories but form-factor suitability. It trades massive compute for integration, and the numbers reflect that trade.

For gaming, the TITAN V’s higher pixel rate (139.7 GPixel/s) and texture rate (465.6 GTexel/s) should translate to better fill-rate-bound scenes, but the database does not include DirectX or PassMark results for the Vega M GH, so direct gaming comparisons are unavailable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA TITAN V outperforms the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH in every recorded benchmark, with deltas of 479.8% in OpenCL and 386.5% in Vulkan. Its average score of 34,355 is 17.7% above the Vega M GH’s 29,197, and its percentile rank of 79 sits five points higher.

Who should pick the TITAN V? Anyone whose workload demands maximum compute throughput: the 14.90 TFLOPS FP32, the 640 tensor cores, the 12 GB HBM2 with 651.3 GB/s bandwidth, and the 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 capability. It is a desktop part with a 250 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 600 W PSU recommendation, suited for a fixed workstation.

Who should pick the Vega M GH? Those who need GPU compute in a portable, integrated form factor. It is an IGP with a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and no PSU requirement, built on 14 nm with a 4 GB HBM2 stack. Its 3.656 TFLOPS FP32 is modest, but it exists inside a device rather than as an expansion card.

The verdict from the database is not a balanced recommendation. The TITAN V wins every measurable comparison, and the only reason to choose the Vega M GH is physical integration, not performance.