AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA TITAN Xp Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN Xp dominates in raw compute. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN Xp scores 72,585 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL’s 19,549, a 73.1% advantage. In Vulkan, the gap is nearly identical: 87,180 versus 22,757, a 73.9% lead.

Q: Which GPU has a larger memory subsystem?

A: The TITAN Xp offers 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 547.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega M GL has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s. The TITAN’s bandwidth is roughly three times higher, though the Vega M GL’s HBM2 uses a much wider interface.

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

A: The Vega M GL averages 21,153 across its benchmark suite, while the TITAN Xp averages 19,177. Interestingly, the TITAN Xp’s average is dragged down by low Passmark scores (e.g., 69 in DirectX 12) despite its massive Geekbench wins.

Q: How does the TITAN Xp compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The TITAN Xp sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (19,164), 0.5% of the Tesla K20m (19,089), and 0.7% of the RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049). Its percentile rank is 64, slightly below the Vega M GL’s 66.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Vega M GL uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The TITAN Xp uses TSMC’s 16 nm node with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The transistor density is similar (24.0M/mm² vs 25.1M/mm²).

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The TITAN Xp supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The TITAN has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could hardly be more different. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses GCN 4.0 (chip: Polaris 22) built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die. The NVIDIA TITAN Xp uses Pascal (chip: GP102) on TSMC’s 16 nm node, with 11,800 million transistors across a 471 mm² die — more than double the transistor count and over twice the physical area.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Vega M GL has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN Xp has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs — exactly three times as many in each category. This explains the TITAN’s 12.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the Vega M GL’s 2.588 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture presents a fascinating contrast. The Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, achieving 179.2 GB/s with only 700 MHz memory clock. The TITAN Xp uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, hitting 547.6 GB/s at 1426 MHz. The TITAN’s narrower bus but much higher clock delivers over three times the bandwidth.

FP16 processing reveals a philosophical split. The Vega M GL computes FP16 at 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 2.588 TFLOPS. The TITAN Xp runs FP16 at 1:64 ratio, producing just 189.8 GFLOPS. This suggests AMD designed the Vega M GL for compute workloads that benefit from FP16, while NVIDIA focused Pascal on pure FP32 gaming performance.

Power and physical design differ starkly. The Vega M GL is an IGP with 65 W TDP and no slot width. The TITAN Xp is a dual-slot card at 250 W requiring 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The TITAN measures 267 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN Xp wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 72,585 versus the Vega M GL’s 19,549. In Geekbench Vulkan, it hits 87,180 versus 22,757. The Vega M GL records zero wins in head-to-head comparisons.

However, the Vega M GL shows a higher average benchmark score (21,153 vs 19,177) and a better percentile rank (66 vs 64). This is because the TITAN Xp’s Passmark results are surprisingly weak — 119 in DirectX 10, 152 in DirectX 11, 69 in DirectX 12, and 226 in DirectX 9. The Vega M GL lacks these Passmark entries entirely, so its average reflects only its two Geekbench tests.

The TITAN Xp’s strengths are clear: massive FP32 throughput, high pixel rate (151.9 GPixel/s vs 32.35 GPixel/s), high texture rate (379.7 GTexel/s vs 80.88 GTexel/s), and triple the memory capacity. The Vega M GL’s advantages are efficiency (65 W vs 250 W), FP16 capability, and its integrated form factor.

Use-case split: the TITAN Xp suits desktop gaming and compute at high resolutions where its bandwidth and raw power shine. The Vega M GL fits portable devices where power draw and space are constrained, and where FP16 workloads matter.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | NVIDIA TITAN Xp |

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

| Chip | Polaris 22 | GP102 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | 1405 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | 1582 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) | 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 1024 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 547.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 80 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 151.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 379.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.588 TFLOPS | 12.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 65 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two tests, and the TITAN Xp wins both by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN Xp scores 72,585 against the Vega M GL’s 19,549. This represents a 73.1% delta — the TITAN delivers roughly 3.7 times the score. The Vega M GL’s nearest rivals in this range include the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237, only 0.4% away) and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379, 1.1% higher), which contextualizes its position: it competes with mobile-class GPUs from several generations ago.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly. The TITAN Xp scores 87,180 versus 22,757, a 73.9% delta. This test likely stresses driver efficiency and async compute, where Pascal’s mature architecture excels. The Vega M GL’s Vulkan score is 16.4% higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the GCN 4.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s explicit model relatively well compared to OpenCL.

Looking at the TITAN Xp’s broader benchmark suite, its Passmark results tell a different story. It scores 18,750 in Passmark G3D — respectable — but only 119 in DirectX 10, 152 in DirectX 11, 69 in DirectX 12, and 226 in DirectX 9. These low scores likely reflect driver issues or benchmark quirks rather than hardware capability, given its Geekbench dominance. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 9,430 and G2D score of 883 round out the picture.

The average benchmark scores present an apparent paradox. The Vega M GL averages 21,153, while the TITAN Xp averages 19,177 — lower despite winning both head-to-head tests. This occurs because the Vega M GL’s average includes only its two strong Geekbench scores, while the TITAN Xp’s includes ten tests, several of which are anomalously low. The percentile ranks (66 vs 64) reflect this compression.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA TITAN Xp is the overwhelmingly faster GPU in every direct comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 3.7 times higher, and its Vulkan score is 3.8 times higher. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in applications that use these APIs, the TITAN Xp is the only rational choice.

However, the story is more nuanced. The TITAN Xp carries a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W PSU, and needs dual-slot space with external power connectors. It measures 267 mm long. The Vega M GL is an IGP with 65 W TDP and no power connectors — it fits into portable devices. The TITAN Xp’s launch MSRP is 1,199 USD.

The Vega M GL’s FP16 capability at 1:1 ratio (2.588 TFLOPS) versus the TITAN Xp’s 1:64 ratio (189.8 GFLOPS) suggests AMD’s part could be preferable for certain compute workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. Its HBM2 memory, while lower bandwidth, operates on a 1024-bit bus — an exotic design choice for an integrated part.

For desktop users with power headroom and space for a dual-slot card, the TITAN Xp wins decisively. Its 12 GB VRAM, 547.6 GB/s bandwidth, and 12.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput put it in a different class. The data shows no scenario where the Vega M GL beats it in raw performance.

For mobile or space-constrained systems where 65 W is the budget and the GPU must be integrated, the Vega M GL is the only viable option between these two. Its percentile rank of 66 versus 64 suggests it sits slightly higher in the overall GPU distribution, and its average benchmark score is higher, though this is partly a function of fewer tests.

The verdict: choose the TITAN Xp for performance, the Vega M GL for integration and efficiency. The data does not support any other conclusion.