NVIDIA Quadro GP100 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

NVIDIA’s Pascal generation produced two very different flagship GPUs: the Quadro GP100 and the TITAN X Pascal. Both are end-of-life products built on the same 16 nm TSMC process, but they diverge sharply in memory technology, chip design, and intended workload. Benchmark data shows a clear winner in compute tasks, while the TITAN X Pascal holds its own in other respects. This analysis uses only the provided fact pack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the Quadro GP100. The Quadro GP100 scores 87,445, while the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696. That is a 31.1% advantage for the Quadro GP100. This is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial lead that reflects the fundamental difference in memory architecture and compute focus between the two cards.

Look at the rival comparisons to contextualize this win. The Quadro GP100 sits at the 93rd percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91,671, 4.6% higher) and the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134, 4% higher). The TITAN X Pascal, by contrast, is at the 91st percentile, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370, 1.7% higher). The 31.1% delta between the two Pascal cards is far larger than any gap between either card and its nearest competitors. In other words, the Quadro GP100 does not just beat the TITAN X Pascal; it does so by a margin that places it in a different performance tier for OpenCL compute.

The TITAN X Pascal does have one benchmark category the Quadro GP100 lacks: Geekbench Vulkan. There, the TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499. However, no Vulkan score exists for the Quadro GP100 in the data, so a direct comparison is impossible. What the data does show is that the TITAN X Pascal’s Vulkan score (77,499) is higher than its own OpenCL score (66,696), suggesting the card’s architecture responds well to modern graphics APIs. Still, with only one head-to-head test, the verdict is unambiguous: the Quadro GP100 wins the only direct contest, and it wins by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro GP100 has an average benchmark score of 87,445, which is the same as its only listed benchmark. The TITAN X Pascal’s average is 72,098, derived from two benchmarks (OpenCL at 66,696 and Vulkan at 77,499). The Quadro GP100 leads by 21.3% in average score.

Q: Does the TITAN X Pascal outperform the Quadro GP100 in any benchmark?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro GP100 wins with 87,445 versus 66,696, a 31.1% delta. The TITAN X Pascal has a Vulkan score of 77,499, but the Quadro GP100 has no Vulkan score listed, so no comparison can be made.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro GP100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 732.2 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s. The Quadro GP100 has 52.4% more memory bandwidth.

Q: Are the two cards similar in compute power?

A: They have identical shading unit counts (3,584) and identical texture mapping unit counts (224) and ROP counts (96). However, the TITAN X Pascal has a higher FP32 throughput at 10.97 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS for the Quadro GP100. The Quadro GP100’s FP16 throughput is 20.69 TFLOPS, while the TITAN X Pascal’s is only 171.5 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro GP100 has a TDP of 235 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W with a single 8-pin power connector. The TITAN X Pascal has a TDP of 250 W, a suggested PSU of 600 W, and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. The TITAN X Pascal draws 15 W more.

Q: Which card is older?

A: The TITAN X Pascal was released on 2016-08-01, and the Quadro GP100 was released on 2016-09-30. The TITAN X Pascal is approximately two months older.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Pascal architecture, but they are built on different chips. The Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip, while the TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip. This is the root of all major architectural differences.

The GP100 chip is physically larger and more complex. It has 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. The GP102 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. Both are manufactured on the same 16 nm process at TSMC, and both have the same transistor density of 25.1M / mm², but the GP100 packs 29.7% more transistors into a 29.5% larger die.

Memory architecture is the most striking difference. The Quadro GP100 uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus width, a design choice that prioritizes memory bandwidth above all else. The TITAN X Pascal uses GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus, a more conventional approach. The Quadro GP100’s memory bandwidth is 732.2 GB/s, which is 52.4% higher than the TITAN X Pascal’s 480.4 GB/s. This memory advantage is likely the primary driver of the Quadro GP100’s 31.1% lead in OpenCL, where large data transfers dominate.

Compute capabilities also diverge. Both cards have 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. However, FP32 throughput differs: the TITAN X Pascal reaches 10.97 TFLOPS, while the Quadro GP100 delivers 10.34 TFLOPS. The TITAN X Pascal is 6.1% faster in raw single-precision floating-point. The FP16 story is inverted and dramatic. The Quadro GP100 offers 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio), while the TITAN X Pascal offers only 171.5 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio). The Quadro GP100 is designed for workloads that benefit from reduced precision, while the TITAN X Pascal effectively treats FP16 as a minor feature.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, marking them as pre-RTX generation products. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The TITAN X Pascal supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro GP100 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications, all drawn directly from the fact pack.

• Chip: Quadro GP100 uses GP100; TITAN X Pascal uses GP102.
• Transistors: 15,300 million versus 11,800 million.
• Die size: 610 mm² versus 471 mm².
• Base clock: 1304 MHz versus 1417 MHz.
• Boost clock: 1443 MHz versus 1531 MHz.
• Memory clock: 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective) versus 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 12 GB.
• Memory type: HBM2 versus GDDR5X.
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit versus 384 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 732.2 GB/s versus 480.4 GB/s.
• FP32: 10.34 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64).
• Pixel rate: 138.5 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 323.2 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s.
• TDP: 235 W versus 250 W.
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 600 W.
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Vulkan support: 1.3 versus 1.4.
• Dimensions: Both are 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm vs 112 mm tall. The TITAN X Pascal has a listed width of 40 mm (1.6 inches); the Quadro GP100 does not list a width.
• Release date: 2016-09-30 versus 2016-08-01.
• Predecessor: Quadro Maxwell versus GeForce 900.
• Successor: Quadro Volta versus GeForce 20.
• Launch MSRP: The TITAN X Pascal has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. The Quadro GP100 has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for OpenCL compute workloads: the Quadro GP100 is the superior card. It delivers 87,445 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 31.1% advantage over the TITAN X Pascal’s 66,696. Its memory bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s, enabled by HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, is the clear differentiator. If your primary metric is raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the Quadro GP100 is the correct choice.

The TITAN X Pascal is not without merit. It has a higher FP32 throughput (10.97 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s versus 138.5 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (342.9 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s). It also has a higher base and boost clock (1417/1531 MHz versus 1304/1443 MHz). These numbers suggest that for graphics-oriented tasks that rely on traditional rasterization, the TITAN X Pascal may hold an edge, though no head-to-head graphics benchmark exists in the data to confirm this.

The TITAN X Pascal also has a Vulkan score of 77,499, which is higher than its OpenCL score. This indicates that the card performs better under Vulkan than OpenCL, potentially making it more suitable for modern gaming or Vulkan-based compute. However, without a Quadro GP100 Vulkan score, this remains speculative.

For FP16 workloads, the Quadro GP100 is in a different league. Its 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 versus the TITAN X Pascal’s 171.5 GFLOPS represents a 120-fold advantage. Any application that leverages FP16 for machine learning or scientific computing will strongly favor the Quadro GP100.

The TITAN X Pascal’s launch MSRP was 1,199 USD. The Quadro GP100 has no listed launch MSRP, so no price comparison is possible.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins in:

• OpenCL compute (87,445 versus 66,696, a 31.1% lead).
• Memory bandwidth (732.2 GB/s versus 480.4 GB/s).
• Memory capacity (16 GB versus 12 GB).
• FP16 compute (20.69 TFLOPS versus 171.5 GFLOPS).
• Lower power draw (235 W versus 250 W) and lower PSU requirement (550 W versus 600 W).
• Percentile ranking (93rd versus 91st among all GPUs).

NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins in:

• FP32 compute (10.97 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS).
• Pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s versus 138.5 GPixel/s).
• Texture rate (342.9 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s).
• Base and boost clocks (1417/1531 MHz versus 1304/1443 MHz).
• Vulkan support version (1.4 versus 1.3).
• Display outputs (adds an HDMI 2.0 port, whereas the Quadro GP100 has none).

Choose the Quadro GP100 if your workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, large memory transfers, or FP16 precision. Choose the TITAN X Pascal if you prioritize raw FP32 throughput, higher clock speeds, or require a Vulkan 1.4 implementation. The data does not support any other conclusion.