NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench Vulkan, and the result is lopsided. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183,725, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal manages 77,499. That translates to a 137.1% advantage for the A100, meaning it delivers more than double the Vulkan performance of the older card. This is a generational gap that no amount of driver optimization or overclocking on the TITAN X Pascal could plausibly close.

Looking at the A100's position against its own nearest rivals, the 183,725 score places it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation (184,664) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell (182,109). More notably, it trails the A100 SXM4 40 GB variant by 1.8%, which recorded 187,147. The A100 80 GB also sits 3.2% above the GeForce RTX 4090 D (178,050). The percentile data reinforces this: the A100 ranks in the 98th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the TITAN X Pascal sits at the 91st percentile. The TITAN X Pascal, for context, is within a narrow band of AMD workstation and mobile parts: it is 0.4% behind the Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379), 0.5% ahead of the Radeon RX 6650M (71,768), and 1.8% ahead of the Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). It also trails the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition by 1.7% (73,370).

The A100's average benchmark score is 183,725, identical to its Vulkan result, since that is its only recorded test. The TITAN X Pascal's average is 72,098, pulled down by its OpenCL result of 66,696, which is lower than its Vulkan score of 77,499. The delta between the two cards' averages, roughly 111,627 points, underscores how far apart these products are in raw compute throughput. The A100 is not merely faster; it is in a different performance class entirely, as the 98th versus 91st percentile ranking confirms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is vast. The A100 SXM4 80 GB uses the GA100 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip on Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. That process shrink alone explains a great deal of the efficiency and density gap. The A100 packs 54,200 million transistors onto an 826 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The TITAN X Pascal has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, for a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The A100 holds nearly five times the transistor count, on a die that is less than double the size.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The A100 has 6,912 shading units, 432 texture mapping units, and 160 ROPs. The TITAN X Pascal has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. In every category, the A100 roughly doubles the TITAN X's counts. The A100 also adds 432 tensor cores, which the TITAN X Pascal lacks entirely. Neither card has ray tracing cores, so that is a non-issue in this comparison.

Clock speeds tell a different story, and it is the only area where the older card leads. The TITAN X Pascal has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the A100 runs at 1275 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost. The TITAN X runs faster at the silicon level, but its architectural disadvantages, fewer cores, older process, and lack of tensor hardware, overwhelm that clock advantage. The memory situation is similarly one-sided. The A100 uses 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s. The A100's memory bandwidth is more than four times higher, which is critical for data-heavy workloads.

Memory clocks also differ. The A100's memory runs at 1593 MHz, with 3.2 Gbps effective speed. The TITAN X Pascal's memory runs at 1251 MHz, with 10 Gbps effective. The effective rate on the TITAN X is higher per pin, but the A100's enormous bus width makes the aggregate bandwidth comparison moot. The A100 also has a distinct feature set: it is a server accelerator with no display outputs, while the TITAN X Pascal retains consumer connectivity with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The A100 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the TITAN X Pascal is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The A100 SXM4 80 GB wins in every measurable compute scenario. Its Vulkan score is 137.1% higher, its FP32 throughput is 19.49 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 77.97 TFLOPS versus a paltry 171.5 GFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is especially stark: the A100's 4:1 FP16 ratio means it can process half-precision data at massive scale, while the TITAN X Pascal's 1:64 ratio shows it was never designed for that workload. The A100 also has tensor cores, making it suited for AI inference and training, while the TITAN X Pascal has none. The A100's 2.04 TB/s memory bandwidth makes it the obvious choice for large model fitting, massive matrix operations, and any workload that saturates memory. Its 80 GB capacity dwarfs the TITAN X's 12 GB, so datasets that fit entirely in VRAM on the A100 would spill to system memory on the TITAN X.

The TITAN X Pascal's wins are narrower and more situational. It has a higher base and boost clock, so single-threaded, low-occupancy tasks that cannot utilize the A100's massive parallel array might run at lower latency on the TITAN X. It also has display outputs, meaning it can drive monitors, whereas the A100 is a compute-only accelerator with no outputs. For a desktop user who needs a GPU for traditional rasterized gaming or everyday graphics work, the TITAN X Pascal is functionally usable, while the A100 would not even power a display. The TITAN X also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the A100's API support fields are all null, suggesting it was never intended for consumer graphics APIs. The TITAN X's 250 W TDP is also lower than the A100's 400 W, so it is easier to cool and power in a standard desktop chassis.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The A100 uses a 7 nm process; the TITAN X Pascal uses 16 nm. The A100 has 54,200 million transistors; the TITAN X has 11,800 million. Die size is 826 mm² versus 471 mm². Transistor density is 65.6 million per mm² versus 25.1 million per mm². The A100's base clock is 1275 MHz versus 1417 MHz, and its boost clock is 1410 MHz versus 1531 MHz. Memory size is 80 GB versus 12 GB. Memory type is HBM2e versus GDDR5X. Bus width is 5120 bit versus 384 bit. Bandwidth is 2.04 TB/s versus 480.4 GB/s. Shading units are 6,912 versus 3,584. TMUs are 432 versus 224. ROPs are 160 versus 96. The A100 has 432 tensor cores; the TITAN X has none. Pixel rate is 225.6 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 609.1 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 19.49 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS. FP16 is 77.97 TFLOPS versus 171.5 GFLOPS. TDP is 400 W versus 250 W. The A100 is an OAM module with no power connectors; the TITAN X is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. Suggested PSU is 800 W versus 600 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: none on the A100, while the TITAN X has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The TITAN X has dimensions of 267 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width; the A100's dimensions are not recorded. Release dates differ: the A100 launched on 2020-11-15, while the TITAN X launched on 2016-08-01.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB, with 19.49 TFLOPS, compared to the TITAN X Pascal's 10.97 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the TITAN X Pascal have tensor cores?

A: No. The TITAN X Pascal has no tensor cores, while the A100 SXM4 80 GB includes 432 tensor cores.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB delivers 2.04 TB/s over a 5120-bit HBM2e interface. The TITAN X Pascal delivers 480.4 GB/s over a 384-bit GDDR5X interface.

Q: Which card can output to a display?

A: Only the TITAN X Pascal, which has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The A100 SXM4 80 GB has no display outputs.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB has a 400 W TDP, while the TITAN X Pascal has a 250 W TDP. The A100 also suggests an 800 W PSU, versus 600 W for the TITAN X.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183,725 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 137.1% higher than the TITAN X Pascal's 77,499.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The A100 SXM4 80 GB is the superior compute device in every recorded metric: 137.1% faster in Vulkan, 1.78x higher FP32 throughput, 455x higher FP16 throughput, and over 4x the memory bandwidth. Its 98th percentile ranking versus the TITAN X's 91st percentile confirms that it belongs to a different tier of hardware. For anyone running AI models, large-scale scientific simulations, or memory-bound data processing, the A100 is the only rational choice between these two. The 80 GB HBM2e pool alone makes it viable for workloads the TITAN X cannot even attempt.

The TITAN X Pascal, however, still has a narrow niche. Its higher clocks, lower TDP, and display outputs make it the only one of the two that can function as a traditional desktop GPU. It supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it can drive multiple monitors. If the task is consumer gaming, desktop rendering, or any workload that requires a GUI, the TITAN X Pascal is the practical pick, simply because the A100 cannot output video at all. The TITAN X also requires a less demanding power setup: 250 W TDP with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, versus the A100's 400 W OAM module with no connectors, which is not even designed for a standard PC chassis.

That said, the performance gap is so extreme that any compute-focused buyer should disregard the TITAN X entirely. The A100's nearest rivals, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, are within 1% of its score, which suggests that if the A100 is unavailable, those are the alternatives to consider. The TITAN X Pascal's nearest rivals, all AMD Radeon parts within 1.8% of its score, indicate that it competes with a much older, lower-performance tier. The verdict is simple: choose the A100 for compute, choose the TITAN X Pascal only if you need a functioning display output and can tolerate an order-of-magnitude reduction in throughput.