NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, yet their average benchmark scores place them in a remarkably close overall standing. The data shows the RTX A2000 Mobile wins both shared benchmark tests decisively, but the GTX TITAN edges out its rival in overall percentile ranking, creating a nuanced comparison where generational efficiency meets raw legacy specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN has a higher average benchmark score of 14,373 compared to the RTX A2000 Mobile's 13,821, a difference of roughly 4%.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 127% higher than the GTX TITAN's score of 24,873, representing a -56% delta from the winner's perspective.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in their head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 53,146 versus the GTX TITAN's 10,027, a -81.1% delta indicating the RTX A2000 Mobile is more than five times faster.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has a transistor density of 43.5M transistors per mm² compared to the GTX TITAN's 12.6M per mm², reflecting the newer 8nm process node versus the older 28nm node.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the RTX A2000 Mobile supports version 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the GTX TITAN supports only version 12 (11_0), indicating a feature level difference.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two?

A: The GTX TITAN ranks in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A2000 Mobile ranks in the 55th percentile, showing they sit at nearly identical positions in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The GTX TITAN is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK110 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 28nm process node. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a massive 561 mm² die, yielding a modest transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². In contrast, the RTX A2000 Mobile uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors in a much smaller 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm² — over three times the density of the Kepler chip.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The GTX TITAN features 6GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 Mobile has only 4GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yet still manages 192.0 GB/s due to faster effective memory speeds of 12 Gbps versus 6 Gbps. The RTX A2000 Mobile also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the GTX TITAN: 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, enabling features like DirectX 12 Ultimate support that the older card cannot offer.

Compute architecture differs in core composition. The GTX TITAN has 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, only 80 TMUs, but the same 48 ROPs. Despite fewer TMUs, the RTX A2000 Mobile achieves a higher pixel rate of 80.98 GPixel/s versus 49.06 GPixel/s, though its texture rate of 135.0 GTexel/s trails the GTX TITAN's 196.2 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells a similar story: the RTX A2000 Mobile hits 8.637 TFLOPS in FP32, nearly double the GTX TITAN's 4.709 TFLOPS, and matches that figure for FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear recommendation for most users: the RTX A2000 Mobile is the superior choice for modern workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 56% in OpenCL and 81.1% in Vulkan, and it offers over twice the FP32 compute throughput at 8.637 TFLOPS versus 4.709 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 Mobile also brings ray tracing and tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a dramatically lower power draw of 95W versus 250W. For anyone running current games, compute tasks, or portable systems, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the better performer.

The GTX TITAN, however, retains advantages that matter in specific scenarios. It has 50% more memory capacity (6GB versus 4GB), higher memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s), and more TMUs (224 versus 80) for texture-heavy workloads. Its higher average benchmark score of 14,373 and 56th percentile ranking versus the RTX A2000 Mobile's 55th percentile suggest that in certain legacy or bandwidth-bound applications, the older card can still keep pace. The GTX TITAN also offers a higher texture rate of 196.2 GTexel/s, making it potentially faster for texture-bound rendering tasks.

For gaming and general-purpose modern use, choose the RTX A2000 Mobile. For large-memory or bandwidth-critical workloads where raw throughput matters more than feature support, the GTX TITAN remains viable. The RTX A2000 Mobile is the more future-proof option, while the GTX TITAN represents a historical high-water mark for its era that still delivers competitive aggregate scores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification category. The process node moves from 28nm (TSMC) for the GTX TITAN to 8nm (Samsung) for the RTX A2000 Mobile. Transistor count rises from 7,080 million to 8,700 million, while die size shrinks from 561 mm² to 200 mm². Transistor density jumps from 12.6M per mm² to 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the RTX A2000 Mobile with a base clock of 1,215 MHz versus 836 MHz, and a boost clock of 1,687 MHz versus 876 MHz. Memory configuration changes from 6GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus to 4GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth drops from 288.4 GB/s to 192.0 GB/s, while effective memory speed rises from 6 Gbps to 12 Gbps.

Shading units are close (2,688 versus 2,560), but TMUs differ substantially (224 versus 80). ROPs are identical at 48. The RTX A2000 Mobile adds 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, both absent from the GTX TITAN. Pixel rate increases from 49.06 GPixel/s to 80.98 GPixel/s, while texture rate decreases from 196.2 GTexel/s to 135.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance nearly doubles from 4.709 TFLOPS to 8.637 TFLOPS. TDP drops dramatically from 250W to 95W, with the GTX TITAN requiring dual-slot cooling, 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a 600W suggested PSU, while the RTX A2000 Mobile is an IGP with no power connectors and no PSU recommendation. Bus interface advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a dominant performance by the RTX A2000 Mobile across both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 against the GTX TITAN's 24,873. This represents a -56% delta from the winner's side, meaning the GTX TITAN achieves only 44% of the RTX A2000 Mobile's score. The margin is substantial and reflects the Ampere architecture's superior compute efficiency per watt and per clock.

The Geekbench Vulkan test reveals an even wider gap. The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 53,146, while the GTX TITAN manages just 10,027. The -81.1% delta indicates the GTX TITAN reaches only 18.9% of the RTX A2000 Mobile's Vulkan performance. This dramatic difference suggests the Kepler architecture's older driver support and lack of modern API optimizations severely hamper its Vulkan throughput, while Ampere's dedicated hardware and updated drivers excel in this workload.

These benchmark results align with the underlying compute specifications. The RTX A2000 Mobile's FP32 throughput of 8.637 TFLOPS is 83% higher than the GTX TITAN's 4.709 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance at 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) provides an additional capability the GTX TITAN lacks entirely. Higher boost clocks (1,687 MHz versus 876 MHz) and newer memory technology (GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective) further contribute to the RTX A2000 Mobile's decisive wins in both API tests.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 Mobile wins in every modern compute and graphics scenario where API support and raw FLOPs matter. Its 2x advantage in FP32 throughput, 5.3x advantage in Vulkan performance, and 2.3x advantage in OpenCL performance make it the clear choice for current games, GPU-accelerated applications, and ray-traced workloads. The presence of 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores opens up capabilities that the GTX TITAN cannot access at all. Its 95W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency and space are critical constraints.

The GTX TITAN wins in scenarios that favor its unique memory configuration and texture processing capabilities. Its 6GB of memory versus 4GB provides 50% more capacity for large datasets, textures, or multi-monitor setups that exceed the RTX A2000 Mobile's VRAM limit. Its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth is 50% higher than the RTX A2000 Mobile's 192.0 GB/s, benefiting bandwidth-bound operations. The 224 TMUs versus 80 deliver a 45% higher texture rate (196.2 GTexel/s versus 135.0 GTexel/s), making the GTX TITAN potentially faster for texture-heavy rendering pipelines. Its 56th percentile ranking versus the RTX A2000 Mobile's 55th also indicates slightly better aggregate performance in the broader benchmark database, likely driven by legacy test suites that favor the older architecture's strengths. For users running older DirectX 11 or OpenGL applications, or those needing maximum memory capacity without regard for power consumption, the GTX TITAN retains a legitimate advantage.