NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between two very different NVIDIA offerings. The GeForce GTX TITAN X, a Maxwell 2.0 product from the GeForce 900 generation, and the Quadro GV100, a Volta architecture workstation card, occupy the same percentile ranking among all GPUs (80th), yet their benchmark profiles could not be more divergent.

The Quadro GV100 is the dominant performer in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 150,004 against the TITAN X's 41,471, a 72.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 posts 139,526 versus 49,397, a 64.6% lead. For any workload that leverages compute APIs, the GV100 is the definitive choice. The TITAN X does not win a single head-to-head test in the data.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The TITAN X has an average benchmark score of 36,530, while the GV100 sits at 35,520. This means the TITAN X is actually 1.9% ahead of the GV100 in aggregate performance across all tests recorded. The GV100's massive OpenCL and Vulkan wins are offset by its scores in the Passmark suite, where it records figures like 140 in DirectX 10, 168 in DirectX 11, 84 in DirectX 12, and 207 in DirectX 9. These are low scores that drag down its average.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. Users whose primary concern is raw compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan should select the Quadro GV100. Users who need a more balanced card across a wider variety of legacy and graphics-oriented benchmarks, or who are constrained by the 999 USD launch MSRP of the TITAN X versus the 8,999 USD launch MSRP of the GV100, will find the TITAN X more aligned with their needs. The GV100 is a specialized compute instrument; the TITAN X is a broader, if older, general-purpose performer.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The GeForce GTX TITAN X uses the GM200 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on the Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 21,100 million transistors onto an 815 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The TITAN X has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s. This is a 2.58x difference in memory capacity and a 2.58x difference in bandwidth, both favoring the GV100.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The TITAN X has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The GV100 also includes 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the TITAN X. Neither card has ray tracing cores.

Clock speeds and derived rates differ. The TITAN X runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1089 MHz. The GV100 runs at a base of 1132 MHz and a boost of 1627 MHz. Pixel rates are 104.5 GPixel/s for the TITAN X and 208.3 GPixel/s for the GV100. Texture rates are 209.1 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 6.691 TFLOPS versus 16.66 TFLOPS. The GV100 also has FP16 performance of 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1), while the TITAN X has no listed FP16 capability.

Both cards are dual-slot, use PCIe 3.0 x16, and have the same 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU. The TITAN X uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the GV100 uses a single 8-pin. Display outputs differ: the TITAN X has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2; the GV100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL computing?

A: The Quadro GV100 is dramatically faster. It scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 72.4% higher than the TITAN X's score of 41,471.

Q: Does the TITAN X win any benchmark against the GV100?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the GV100 wins both recorded tests. The TITAN X has zero wins, while the GV100 has two wins.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The TITAN X has a higher average benchmark score of 36,530, compared to the GV100's 35,520. This means the TITAN X is 1.9% ahead on average, despite losing the individual head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The TITAN X has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.6 GB/s bandwidth. The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the Quadro GV100 has tensor cores, with 640 of them. The GeForce GTX TITAN X has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: Both cards are 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The TITAN X has a width of 38 mm; the GV100's width is not listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards. The TITAN X uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the GV100 uses the GV100 chip on Volta. The process node is 28 nm for the TITAN X and 12 nm for the GV100. Transistor count is 8,000 million versus 21,100 million. Die size is 601 mm² versus 815 mm². Transistor density is 13.3M per mm² versus 25.9M per mm².

Clocks differ: base 1000 MHz versus 1132 MHz, boost 1089 MHz versus 1627 MHz. Memory clocks are 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the TITAN X and 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) for the GV100. Memory size is 12 GB versus 32 GB; type is GDDR5 versus HBM2; bus width is 384 bit versus 4096 bit; bandwidth is 336.6 GB/s versus 868.4 GB/s.

Shading units are 3,072 versus 5,120. TMUs are 192 versus 320. ROPs are 96 versus 128. Tensor cores are absent on the TITAN X and number 640 on the GV100. Pixel rates are 104.5 GPixel/s versus 208.3 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 209.1 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 6.691 TFLOPS versus 16.66 TFLOPS. FP16 is not listed for the TITAN X and is 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) for the GV100.

Power connectors are 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin for the TITAN X and 1x 8-pin for the GV100. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Width is 38 mm for the TITAN X and not listed for the GV100. Release dates are 2015-03-16 for the TITAN X and 2018-03-26 for the GV100. Predecessors are GeForce 700 versus Quadro Pascal. Successors are GeForce 10 versus Quadro Turing. Launch MSRP is 999 USD versus 8,999 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two tests, and the Quadro GV100 wins both decisively. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The TITAN X scores 41,471, while the GV100 scores 150,004. The delta percentage is -72.4%, indicating the TITAN X is 72.4% behind the GV100. This is a massive gap, reflecting the GV100's superior compute architecture, higher shading unit count, and significantly faster memory bandwidth.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. The TITAN X scores 49,397, and the GV100 scores 139,526. The delta percentage is -64.6%, again favoring the GV100. While the gap is slightly narrower than in OpenCL, it is still a substantial margin of victory. The Vulkan results suggest the GV100's architecture is more efficient at low-level graphics and compute API workloads, likely due to its newer design and tensor core integration.

The TITAN X has zero wins in this comparison, and the GV100 has two wins. However, the average benchmark score data complicates the picture. The TITAN X averages 36,530 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the GV100 averages 35,520. This means the TITAN X is, on average, 1.9% ahead of the GV100. The reason is the GV100's Passmark scores. In Passmark DirectX 10, it scores 140; in DirectX 11, 168; in DirectX 12, 84; in DirectX 9, 207. These are low scores that heavily weight the average downward. The TITAN X's benchmark set includes Geekbench Metal (18,723), OpenCL (41,471), and Vulkan (49,397), all of which are relatively strong and consistent.

The data suggests that the GV100 is a specialized compute card that excels in modern API workloads but struggles in legacy DirectX tests. The TITAN X is more consistent across its tested workloads, which is why its average score is higher despite losing the direct head-to-head comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro GV100 wins in compute-intensive scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 is 72.4% higher than the TITAN X, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks such as scientific simulation, data processing, or machine learning inference. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 139,526 is 64.6% higher, indicating superiority in Vulkan-based workloads, which includes modern game engines and cross-platform graphics applications. The presence of 640 tensor cores and FP16 performance of 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) suggests the GV100 is designed for AI and deep learning tasks, though the data does not include specific tensor core benchmarks.

The TITAN X wins in the aggregate. Its average benchmark score of 36,530 is 1.9% higher than the GV100's 35,520. This is driven by the GV100's very low Passmark scores, particularly in DirectX 12 (84) and DirectX 10 (140). For users running legacy DirectX applications or older graphics workloads, the TITAN X is the more reliable performer. The TITAN X also has a significantly lower launch MSRP of 999 USD versus 8,999 USD, which is a substantial consideration for any buyer, though the data does not comment on value.

The TITAN X is also the more balanced card for general-purpose use. It has a Geekbench Metal score of 18,723, which is not matched by the GV100 in the data. For users on macOS or Metal-based applications, the TITAN X is the only option with a recorded score. The TITAN X's GDDR5 memory and 384-bit bus, while less advanced than the GV100's HBM2, are sufficient for its profile.

In summary, the GV100 is the dedicated compute champion for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with a massive lead in both tests. The TITAN X is the better all-rounder, with a higher average benchmark score and a more consistent performance profile across a wider range of tests. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes peak compute throughput or balanced general performance.