NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z occupy very different eras of NVIDIA's lineup, and the recorded data reflects that gap plainly. Both cards are end-of-life products now, but the RTX 3090 arrived in 2020 as part of the GeForce 30 series on the Ampere architecture, while the GTX TITAN Z dates to 2014 and the Kepler-based GeForce 700 generation. Across the two benchmarks where the database holds results for both cards, the RTX 3090 wins every time, and by margins large enough that the comparison is less a contest than a demonstration of six years of architectural progress. The following analysis walks through the head-to-head numbers, the surrounding benchmark records for each card, and the specification differences that explain the results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests in the database contain results for both cards, and both are decisive wins for the RTX 3090.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scored 172,758 against the TITAN Z's 25,465. That is a delta of 578.4 percent, meaning the RTX 3090 delivered nearly seven times the compute throughput of the TITAN Z in this general-purpose GPU compute test. The OpenCL result is where the raw silicon advantage of the newer card shows most starkly: 35.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 5.046 TFLOPS on the TITAN Z is a gap of roughly the same magnitude, so the benchmark score is consistent with what the specification sheet predicts. The RTX 3090 also brings 328 Tensor cores and 82 RT cores that the TITAN Z simply lacks, which matters for any workload that can use them, although Geekbench OpenCL here is measuring the raw compute path.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains a rout: 53,927 for the RTX 3090 versus 22,006 for the TITAN Z, a delta of 145.1 percent. Vulkan is a graphics API, so this test leans more on rendering pipelines, texture throughput, and memory bandwidth than on pure compute, which explains some of the narrowing. Even so, the RTX 3090 more than doubles the TITAN Z's score. The card's 936.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, enabled by GDDR6X memory running at an effective 19.5 Gbps across a 384-bit bus, is nearly three times the TITAN Z's 336.0 GB/s from GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective on the same bus width, and that disparity feeds directly into the Vulkan result.

The head-to-head record stands at two wins for the RTX 3090 and zero for the TITAN Z. There are no benchmarks in the database where the TITAN Z comes out ahead.

Context from each card's broader record reinforces the picture. The RTX 3090's average benchmark score across its full recorded suite is 27,565, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals by average score include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile at 27,435 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT at 27,425 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 27,839 (1 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27,883 (1.1 percent ahead). In other words, the RTX 3090 performs in the same band as those four cards, trading blows within a couple of percent.

The TITAN Z's average benchmark score is 23,736, good for the 69th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile at 23,628 (0.5 percent behind), the AMD Radeon RX 9070 at 23,877 (0.6 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile at 23,518 (0.9 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S at 24,063 (1.4 percent ahead). Note the percentile subtlety: despite losing every direct comparison to the RTX 3090 by enormous margins, the TITAN Z sits only four percentile points lower against the full database population, because the averages are computed over different test suites. The direct head-to-head results are the cleaner measure of relative capability.

The Verdict

The data supports exactly one conclusion: the RTX 3090 is the stronger card in every measured workload. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 578.4 percent and Geekbench Vulkan by 145.1 percent, and it holds the higher average benchmark score (27,565 versus 23,736) and the higher database percentile (73 versus 69).

Who should pick which, strictly from the data? Anyone choosing between these two for compute or graphics work should pick the RTX 3090. It offers nearly seven times the OpenCL throughput, more than double the Vulkan graphics score, 24 GB of memory versus 6 GB, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature-level support versus DirectX 12 (11_1), and dedicated RT and Tensor hardware the TITAN Z does not have. The TITAN Z has no recorded benchmark win, no specification advantage in throughput, and a lower percentile ranking. There is no measured scenario in the database where it is the better performer.

The launch MSRP figures tell their own story about positioning: the TITAN Z launched at 2,999 USD and the RTX 3090 at 1,499 USD. Both are stated once here as recorded launch MSRPs, per database convention, and no further comment is needed beyond noting that the older card was positioned at the very top of its generation while the newer one, despite costing half as much at launch, dominates it in every measurement.

Where Each One Wins

Given a two-and-zero head-to-head record, the use-case split is one-sided.

The RTX 3090 wins GPU compute workloads: its Geekbench OpenCL score of 172,758 against 25,465 makes it the clear choice for any OpenCL-accelerated task. It wins graphics workloads, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 53,927 versus 22,006. Its full benchmark record adds further evidence: a PassMark G3D score of 26,645, a PassMark GPU Compute score of 15,356, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,118, along with PassMark DirectX results of 268 (DX9), 182 (DX10), 220 (DX11), and 110 (DX12), plus a PassMark G2D score of 1,063. None of these tests have TITAN Z counterparts in the database, but they document a broad, modern rendering capability.

The TITAN Z wins nothing in the recorded data. The only qualitative points in its favor are physical and connectivity-related rather than performance-related: it is shorter (267 mm versus 336 mm), it uses conventional 2x 8-pin power connectors rather than the 3090's 1x 12-pin, and it offers 2x DVI outputs alongside HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2, which could matter for legacy multi-monitor setups using older display standards. Those are compatibility considerations, not performance wins.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3090 than the GTX TITAN Z in compute?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scored 172,758 versus 25,465 for the TITAN Z, a delta of 578.4 percent.

Q: How do the two compare in graphics benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3090 scored 53,927 versus 22,006 for the TITAN Z, a 145.1 percent advantage for the RTX 3090.

Q: Did the GTX TITAN Z win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head record is two wins for the RTX 3090 and zero for the TITAN Z.

Q: How do their database percentile rankings compare?

A: The RTX 3090 sits in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs; the TITAN Z sits in the 69th percentile.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X with 936.2 GB/s of bandwidth; the TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 with 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which cards perform closest to each of these two?

A: The RTX 3090's nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 Mobile and the RX 6700 XT, both about 0.5 percent behind it on average score. The TITAN Z's nearest rivals include the RTX 3080 Mobile (0.5 percent behind) and the RX 6800S (1.4 percent ahead).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these cards is the root of the benchmark results. The RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, fabricated at Samsung on an 8 nm process. The TITAN Z uses the GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. That process gap translates directly into density: the GA102 packs 28,300 million transistors into 628 mm², a density of 45.1M per mm², while the GK110B carries 7,080 million transistors across 561 mm² at 12.6M per mm². The RTX 3090 has roughly four times the transistor count on a die only modestly larger.

The functional units scale accordingly. The RTX 3090 fields 10,496 shading units, 328 texture mapping units, 112 render output units, 82 RT cores, and 328 Tensor cores. The TITAN Z has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no RT or Tensor hardware at all, since those units did not exist in the Kepler era. Throughput rates follow: the RTX 3090 manages 189.8 GPixel/s of pixel fill and 556.0 GTexel/s of texture fill, against 52.56 GPixel/s and 210.2 GTexel/s for the TITAN Z. Feature support diverges too, with the RTX 3090 offering DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the TITAN Z tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The fields where the two cards differ, side by side:

• Chip: GA102 versus GK110B
• Architecture: Ampere versus Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 30 versus GeForce 700
• Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) versus 28 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 28,300 million versus 7,080 million
• Die size: 628 mm² versus 561 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.1M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm²
• Base clock: 1395 MHz versus 705 MHz
• Boost clock: 1695 MHz versus 876 MHz
• Memory size: 24 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6X versus GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 936.2 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s (both 384-bit bus)
• Shading units: 10,496 versus 2,880
• TMUs: 328 versus 240
• ROPs: 112 versus 48
• RT / Tensor cores: 82 and 328 versus none
• Pixel rate: 189.8 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 556.0 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 35.58 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS
• FP16: 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not supported
• TDP: 350 W versus 375 W
• Power connectors: 1x 12-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: 336 x 140 x 61 mm versus 267 x 111 x 62 mm
• Release date: 2020 versus 2014
• Launch MSRP: 1,499 USD versus 2,999 USD

Fields where they match: both are NVIDIA-made, triple-slot cards with a 750 W suggested PSU and OpenGL 4.6 support. Both are end-of-life. On everything else, the RTX 3090 leads, and the benchmark data confirms it in every measured test.