NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 records an average benchmark score of 28,421, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z sits at 23,736. That puts the Quadro roughly 19.7% ahead in aggregate performance.

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

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 25,465 for the GTX TITAN Z. The delta is 300.1%, meaning the Quadro delivers more than triple the raw compute throughput in this test.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro RTX 8000 posts 122,637, while the GTX TITAN Z manages 22,006. That is a 457.3% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, while the GTX TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 on the same 384-bit bus width. Memory bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro RTX 8000 launched in August 2018; the GTX TITAN Z launched in May 2014.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip with 18,600 million transistors. The GTX TITAN Z uses the GK110B with 7,080 million transistors, less than half the count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The Quadro RTX 8000 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The GTX TITAN Z uses Kepler silicon on TSMC's 28 nm node. That process gap alone explains much of the performance and efficiency difference.

The Turing chip, TU102, is a large design at 754 mm², while the Kepler GK110B is 561 mm². Transistor density tells the story: 24.7 million transistors per square millimeter on the Turing chip, versus 12.6 million on Kepler. Total transistor count is 18,600 million versus 7,080 million. The Quadro also benefits from dedicated hardware that simply does not exist on the GTX TITAN Z: 72 RT cores for ray tracing and 576 tensor cores for AI workloads. The Kepler GPU has neither.

Shader resources differ significantly. The Quadro RTX 8000 packs 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The GTX TITAN Z has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and only 48 ROPs. Clock speeds reinforce the gap: the Quadro runs at a 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the GTX TITAN Z is much slower at 705 MHz base and 876 MHz boost.

Memory architecture shows a similar divide. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 with 14 Gbps effective speed and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX TITAN Z uses 6 GB of GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective and 336.0 GB/s. Both share a 384-bit bus, but the newer memory type and double the capacity change the practical workload envelope.

API support also reflects the generation gap. The Quadro RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX TITAN Z is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro also provides modern display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C, versus the GTX TITAN Z's 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Power and physical design also differ. The Quadro RTX 8000 is a dual-slot card rated at 260 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The GTX TITAN Z is a triple-slot card at 375 W TDP, requiring a 750 W PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors. The GTX TITAN Z is also thicker: 62 mm wide versus the Quadro's unspecified width, though both share the same 267 mm length and 111 mm height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two direct comparisons, and the Quadro RTX 8000 wins both outright. The wins count is 2 for the Quadro, 0 for the GTX TITAN Z.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against 25,465 for the GTX TITAN Z. The 300.1% delta is not a marginal edge; it represents a fundamental shift in compute capability. The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS, while the GTX TITAN Z manages 5.046 TFLOPS. OpenCL workloads that hammer raw shader throughput will see the Quadro pull ahead by a factor of roughly three.

Geekbench Vulkan tells an even more dramatic story. The Quadro RTX 8000 reaches 122,637, whereas the GTX TITAN Z stops at 22,006. That is a 457.3% advantage. Vulkan's low-level API overhead benefits the newer architecture disproportionately, and the Quadro's vastly higher texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s) feed that result.

It is worth remembering the GTX TITAN Z only has two benchmark entries in the database (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), while the Quadro RTX 8000 also has Passmark entries across DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute. In those additional tests, the Quadro posts a Passmark G3D score of 19,799 and a GPU compute score of 9,992, which further support its standing.

The percentile rankings reinforce the head-to-head results. The Quadro RTX 8000 sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX TITAN Z sits at the 69th. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 28,421 places it near rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28,766, delta -1.2%) and the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580, delta -0.6%). The GTX TITAN Z's 23,736 average sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile (23,628, delta 0.5%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (24,063, delta -1.4%). In other words, the GTX TITAN Z competes with modern mobile GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 8000 trades blows with desktop-class midrange cards.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z in every recorded benchmark. The OpenCL result shows a 300.1% lead; the Vulkan result shows a 457.3% lead. The Quadro also has more memory, more shaders, higher clocks, and a newer architecture with RT and tensor cores.

Who should pick the Quadro RTX 8000? Anyone whose workload depends on raw compute throughput, large memory capacity, or modern API features. The 48 GB frame buffer is decisive for large datasets and high-resolution rendering. The 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 rate and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a strong choice for compute-heavy tasks. The RT and tensor cores add capabilities the GTX TITAN Z cannot offer at all.

Who should pick the GTX TITAN Z? The data does not support a performance-based recommendation. It trails in both head-to-head tests, has a lower average benchmark score, and sits in a lower percentile. Its only advantages are historical: it launched in May 2014 at a 2,999 USD launch MSRP, and it is a triple-slot collector piece from the Kepler era. For any modern task, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior card by every metric recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Turing (TU102) versus Kepler (GK110B)
• Process node: 12 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 18,600 million versus 7,080 million
• Die size: 754 mm² versus 561 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.7M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: 1395 MHz versus 705 MHz
• Boost clock: 1770 MHz versus 876 MHz
• Memory size: 48 GB GDDR6 versus 6 GB GDDR5
• Memory speed: 14 Gbps effective versus 7 Gbps effective
• Memory bandwidth: 672.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 4608 versus 2880
• TMUs: 288 versus 240
• ROPs: 96 versus 48
• RT cores: 72 versus none
• Tensor cores: 576 versus none
• Pixel rate: 169.9 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 509.8 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 16.31 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS
• FP16: 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) versus none
• TDP: 260 W versus 375 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Triple-slot
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 750 W
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a + 1x USB Type-C versus 2x DVI + 1x HDMI 1.4a + 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2018-08-12 versus 2014-05-27
• Predecessor: Quadro Volta versus GeForce 600
• Successor: Workstation Ampere versus GeForce 900
• Launch MSRP: 9,999 USD versus 2,999 USD