NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for direct comparison shows a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA TITAN V, though the sample is limited to two compute-oriented tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN V scores 157,265 against 41,471 for the GTX TITAN X, a delta of -73.6% from the perspective of the older card. This is not a marginal improvement; it represents a more than threefold increase in raw compute throughput under this workload. The Vulkan result tells a similar story, with the TITAN V reaching 152,117 points versus 49,397 points for the GTX TITAN X, a -67.5% delta. Both tests point in the same direction: the TITAN V is in a different performance class for these APIs.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The GTX TITAN X has an average benchmark score of 36,530 across its tested workloads, while the TITAN V averages 34,355. This places the GTX TITAN X slightly ahead in overall average, despite losing both head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in the benchmark suites themselves. The GTX TITAN X was tested on Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, with scores of 18,723, 41,471, and 49,397 respectively. The TITAN V’s suite includes a broader range of Passmark tests, where it posts relatively low scores in DirectX 9 (213), DirectX 10 (153), DirectX 11 (152), and DirectX 12 (81). These low legacy API scores drag down its average, even though its Passmark G3D score of 19,805 and GPU Compute score of 9,263 are strong. The data suggests the TITAN V excels in modern compute workloads but underperforms in older DirectX rasterization tests, possibly due to driver maturity or architectural priorities.

In terms of relative standing among all GPUs, the two cards are nearly tied. The GTX TITAN X sits at the 80th percentile, while the TITAN V is at the 79th. Their nearest rivals reinforce this closeness. The GTX TITAN X’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 5300M with an average score of 36,529 (0% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 at 37,157 (-1.7%) and the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289 (0.7%). The TITAN V’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34,207 (0.4%), with the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34,541 (-0.5%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154 (0.6%). The delta percentages are all within a single point, indicating that both cards are surrounded by a cluster of similarly performing GPUs in the aggregate, despite the TITAN V’s massive lead in specific compute tests.

The wins tally is unambiguous: the TITAN V takes 2 wins, the GTX TITAN X takes 0. Yet this does not tell the full story. The GTX TITAN X’s higher average score suggests that in a mixed workload environment, it may hold its own or even outperform the TITAN V, particularly in older APIs. The data does not include a head-to-head in DirectX or Metal, so conclusions about gaming performance must remain cautious. What is clear is that the TITAN V’s compute advantage is substantial and consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan, making it the choice for compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X has an average benchmark score of 36,530, while the NVIDIA TITAN V averages 34,355. The GTX TITAN X is ahead by roughly 6.3% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How large is the TITAN V’s lead in OpenCL performance?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN V scores 157,265 against the GTX TITAN X’s 41,471. This represents a -73.6% delta from the GTX TITAN X’s perspective, meaning the TITAN V is approximately 3.8 times faster in this test.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both the GTX TITAN X and the TITAN V feature 12 GB of memory. However, the GTX TITAN X uses GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 336.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN V uses HBM2 with a 3072-bit bus and 651.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card among all GPUs?

A: The GTX TITAN X is in the 80th percentile, and the TITAN V is in the 79th percentile. This places both cards in the upper tier of all GPUs, with the GTX TITAN X marginally ahead.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The TITAN V has a boost clock of 1455 MHz, compared to the GTX TITAN X’s boost clock of 1089 MHz. The base clocks are 1200 MHz for the TITAN V and 1000 MHz for the GTX TITAN X.

Q: Are there any tests where the GTX TITAN X wins?

A: In the head-to-head benchmarks provided, the GTX TITAN X does not win any tests. The TITAN V wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. However, the GTX TITAN X does have a higher average benchmark score across its full test suite.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, separated by two generations of process technology. The GTX TITAN X uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip based on Volta architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor count reflects the leap: the GTX TITAN X houses 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, while the TITAN V packs 21,100 million transistors on a larger 815 mm² die. The transistor density nearly doubles, from 13.3M per mm² on the GTX TITAN X to 25.9M per mm² on the TITAN V.

The compute resources differ substantially. The GTX TITAN X has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The TITAN V increases shading units to 5,120 and TMUs to 320, while keeping ROPs at 96. The TITAN V also introduces 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the GTX TITAN X, which has no tensor cores and no RT cores. The pixel rate improves from 104.5 GPixel/s on the GTX TITAN X to 139.7 GPixel/s on the TITAN V. The texture rate more than doubles, from 209.1 GTexel/s to 465.6 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX TITAN X uses GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.6 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V uses HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, more than doubling bandwidth to 651.3 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the GTX TITAN X runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the TITAN V runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The HBM2’s wider bus compensates for the lower clock speed. Floating-point performance tells a similar story: the GTX TITAN X delivers 6.691 TFLOPS FP32, while the TITAN V delivers 14.90 TFLOPS FP32. The TITAN V also supports FP16 at 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1), while the GTX TITAN X has no listed FP16 capability.

Both cards share the same 250 W TDP, dual-slot form factor, and power connector configuration (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin). They also share a 600 W suggested PSU and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The display outputs differ slightly: the GTX TITAN X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the TITAN V drops the DVI and offers 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions are nearly identical, with lengths of 267 mm and heights of 111-112 mm, though the TITAN V is slightly wider at 40 mm versus 38 mm.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between compute performance and aggregate versatility. For workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the TITAN V is the overwhelming choice. Its scores of 157,265 in OpenCL and 152,117 in Vulkan dwarf the GTX TITAN X’s 41,471 and 49,397, respectively. The TITAN V’s 640 tensor cores, 14.90 TFLOPS FP32, and 651.3 GB/s memory bandwidth support this dominance. Any user prioritizing raw compute throughput in modern APIs should select the TITAN V without hesitation.

The GTX TITAN X, however, posts a higher average benchmark score (36,530 vs 34,355) and a slightly better percentile ranking (80th vs 79th). Its benchmark suite includes Geekbench Metal, where it scores 18,723, and its nearest rivals are all within a 1.9% delta, indicating solid consistency. The TITAN V’s average is dragged down by low Passmark scores in legacy DirectX versions, with DirectX 9 at 213, DirectX 10 at 153, DirectX 11 at 152, and DirectX 12 at 81. These scores suggest that the TITAN V may not excel in older rasterization workloads, despite its compute prowess.

The verdict depends on the workload. For compute-intensive tasks in OpenCL and Vulkan, the TITAN V is superior by a wide margin. For a balanced workload that includes older DirectX titles or Metal-based applications, the GTX TITAN X may hold an edge in aggregate performance. Both cards are end-of-life products, but the data does not indicate that either is obsolete. The TITAN V’s launch MSRP was 2,999 USD, while the GTX TITAN X launched at 999 USD, reflecting the TITAN V’s positioning as a premium compute product. The choice is between the TITAN V’s specialized compute strength and the GTX TITAN X’s broader average performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GM200 (GTX TITAN X) vs GV100 (TITAN V)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs Volta
• Generation: GeForce 900 vs GeForce 10
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 12 nm
• Transistors: 8,000 million vs 21,100 million
• Die Size: 601 mm² vs 815 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.3M / mm² vs 25.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 1200 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1089 MHz vs 1455 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit vs 3072 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 336.6 GB/s vs 651.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3072 vs 5120
• TMUs: 192 vs 320
• Tensor Cores: None vs 640
• Pixel Rate: 104.5 GPixel/s vs 139.7 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 209.1 GTexel/s vs 465.6 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 6.691 TFLOPS vs 14.90 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not listed vs 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions (Width): 38 mm vs 40 mm
• Release Date: 2015-03-16 vs 2017-12-06
• Predecessor: GeForce 700 vs GeForce 900
• Successor: GeForce 10 vs GeForce 20
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD vs 2,999 USD

Fields that are identical include ROPs (96), TDP (250 W), slot width (dual-slot), power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), suggested PSU (600 W), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), DirectX version (12_1), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.4), memory size (12 GB), length (267 mm), height (111-112 mm), and production status (end-of-life).

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V wins decisively in compute-oriented benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 157,265 versus 41,471, a 73.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 152,117 versus 49,397, a 67.5% advantage. These results align with its architectural strengths: 5,120 shading units, 640 tensor cores, and 651.3 GB/s memory bandwidth. The TITAN V also has a higher texture rate (465.6 GTexel/s vs 209.1 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (139.7 GPixel/s vs 104.5 GPixel/s), indicating superiority in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its FP32 performance of 14.90 TFLOPS is more than double the GTX TITAN X’s 6.691 TFLOPS. For any task that scales with compute throughput—scientific simulation, machine learning inference, or GPU-accelerated rendering—the TITAN V is the clear winner.

The GTX TITAN X wins in aggregate average performance, with a score of 36,530 compared to the TITAN V’s 34,355. Its benchmark suite includes Geekbench Metal, where the TITAN V has no corresponding score, and its nearest rivals are all within a 1.9% delta, suggesting consistent performance across its tested workloads. The GTX TITAN X’s higher percentile ranking (80th vs 79th) further supports its position in overall standings. While it loses the two direct head-to-head tests, its average suggests it may be more balanced across a wider range of applications, particularly those using Metal or older DirectX versions. The TITAN V’s low Passmark scores in DirectX 9 through 12 (ranging from 81 to 213) indicate potential weaknesses in legacy rasterization, an area where the GTX TITAN X’s Maxwell architecture may still hold ground.

For use-case selection, the guidance is straightforward. If the primary workload is compute-heavy and leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the TITAN V is the superior choice, offering roughly three to four times the performance in those tests. If the workload is varied, includes Metal-based applications, or relies on older DirectX titles, the GTX TITAN X’s higher average benchmark score makes it the safer pick. The data does not support the TITAN V for legacy API performance, given its low Passmark DirectX scores. Conversely, the GTX TITAN X’s lack of tensor cores and lower FP32 throughput make it unsuitable for modern compute tasks where the TITAN V excels. The two cards serve different masters, and the benchmark results reflect that specialization.