NVIDIA Quadro GV100 vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two GV100-based cards, with the NVIDIA TITAN V taking seven of the nine head-to-head tests. The most decisive TITAN V victories come in the compute-oriented and legacy DirectX workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN V scores 157,265 against the Quadro GV100's 150,004, a 4.6% margin. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the TITAN V reaches 152,117 versus 139,526, an 8.3% advantage. The Passmark DirectX 10 test shows a similar pattern, with the TITAN V ahead by 8.5% (153 vs. 140). These results indicate that in raw compute throughput and modern API execution, the TITAN V consistently outpaces its professional counterpart.

The Quadro GV100’s wins are fewer but notable in specific legacy DirectX paths. In Passmark DirectX 11, the Quadro GV100 posts 168 against the TITAN V's 152, a substantial 10.5% lead. The DirectX 12 test also favors the Quadro, though by a slimmer margin: 84 versus 81, a 3.7% difference. These two victories suggest that the Quadro's driver optimizations or hardware configuration provide an edge in certain API-level workloads, even as the TITAN V dominates elsewhere.

The remaining tests show narrower TITAN V advantages. In Passmark DirectX 9, the TITAN V leads by 2.8% (213 vs. 207). The Passmark G2D test shows a 10.8% TITAN V win (937 vs. 836), the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison. Passmark G3D is nearly a tie, with the TITAN V at 19,805 and the Quadro GV100 at 19,650, a mere 0.8% difference. Passmark GPU Compute also edges toward the TITAN V, 9,263 versus 9,069, a 2.1% margin. The overall averages reinforce this picture: the Quadro GV100 averages 35,520 across all benchmark scores, while the TITAN V averages 34,355, though the head-to-head deltas show the TITAN V winning the direct comparisons more frequently.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon: the GV100 chip built on TSMC's 12 nm process, containing 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die with a transistor density of 25.9M per mm². The architecture is Volta for both, and each packs 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 640 tensor cores. Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing cores. The API support is identical, with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The divergence begins with clock speeds. The Quadro GV100 runs a base clock of 1132 MHz and boosts to 1627 MHz, while the TITAN V starts higher at 1200 MHz base but boosts lower to 1455 MHz. This clock difference directly impacts compute throughput: the Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), whereas the TITAN V produces 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Quadro's higher boost clock gives it a theoretical compute advantage of roughly 11% in FP32, yet the benchmark results show the TITAN V winning most compute tests—suggesting other factors dominate in practice.

Memory configuration represents the most significant architectural split. The Quadro GV100 carries 32 GB of HBM2 across a 4096-bit bus, yielding 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V has 12 GB of HBM2 on a narrower 3072-bit bus, producing 651.3 GB/s. The Quadro thus offers more than double the capacity and 33% more bandwidth. Memory clock is identical at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The pixel rate reflects the ROP difference: the Quadro GV100 has 128 ROPs and achieves 208.3 GPixel/s, while the TITAN V has 96 ROPs and reaches 139.7 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the Quadro at 520.6 GTexel/s versus 465.6 GTexel/s, a consequence of its higher clock speed combined with the same TMU count.

Power and physical characteristics are similar but not identical. Both cards are dual-slot designs rated at 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU. Both measure 267 mm in length. The Quadro GV100 stands 111 mm tall and uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the TITAN V is 112 mm tall and 40 mm wide, requiring a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the TITAN V provides one HDMI 2.0 and three DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most users. The NVIDIA TITAN V wins seven of nine head-to-head benchmarks, including all compute-heavy and modern API tests, and does so while being positioned in a different generation family (GeForce 10 versus Quadro Volta). Its advantages in Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and Passmark G2D are consistent and sometimes large, reaching as high as 10.8%. The TITAN V also holds a higher base clock, which may contribute to its stronger real-world performance despite the Quadro's superior boost clock.

The Quadro GV100 is not without merit. Its 32 GB memory capacity is four times that of the TITAN V, and its 868.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 651.3 GB/s gives it a clear edge in memory-bound workloads. It also wins the DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 tests, and its higher theoretical FP32 and FP16 throughput (16.66 and 33.32 TFLOPS versus 14.90 and 29.80 TFLOPS) could matter in specific professional applications that scale with raw compute. The Quadro's four DisplayPort outputs also make it more suitable for multi-display professional setups.

However, the benchmark evidence suggests that for general compute and graphics performance, the TITAN V is the stronger card. Its 79th percentile versus the Quadro's 80th percentile among all GPUs is nearly identical, but the direct comparisons favor the TITAN V decisively. The Quadro GV100's launch MSRP is 8,999 USD, while the TITAN V's launch MSRP is 2,999 USD. Users prioritizing benchmark performance should choose the TITAN V; those needing maximum memory capacity or specific professional features should consider the Quadro GV100.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V wins seven of the nine head-to-head tests, including Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, Passmark DirectX 10, DirectX 9, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest percentage gap is in Passmark G2D, where the TITAN V scores 937 against the Quadro GV100's 836, a 10.8% difference.

Q: How much more memory does the Quadro GV100 have?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory, while the TITAN V has 12 GB, making the Quadro's capacity more than double.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Quadro GV100 boosts to 1627 MHz, which is higher than the TITAN V's boost clock of 1455 MHz.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture and chip?

A: Yes, both use the GV100 chip with Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process with 21,100 million transistors.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32, while the TITAN V delivers 14.90 TFLOPS FP32, a difference of approximately 11% in favor of the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V is the clear winner in compute and modern API workloads. Geekbench OpenCL (157,265 vs. 150,004) and Geekbench Vulkan (152,117 vs. 139,526) show the TITAN V ahead by 4.6% and 8.3%, respectively. These are the tests most representative of general-purpose GPU compute and contemporary rendering APIs, making the TITAN V the better choice for developers, researchers, or enthusiasts running compute-heavy applications. Its Passmark G3D score of 19,805 versus 19,650 (0.8% lead) confirms that even in traditional 3D graphics, the TITAN V holds a slight edge. The TITAN V also dominates 2D performance, with a 10.8% lead in Passmark G2D, and wins the legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests by 2.8% and 8.5%, respectively.

The Quadro GV100 wins where its hardware specifications matter most. Its 32 GB memory capacity and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the TITAN V's 12 GB and 651.3 GB/s, making it the superior option for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or memory-intensive professional applications. The DirectX 11 test (168 vs. 152, a 10.5% win) and DirectX 12 test (84 vs. 81, a 3.7% win) suggest that the Quadro's driver stack is better optimized for certain API paths. Its higher pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s vs. 139.7 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s vs. 465.6 GTexel/s) provide theoretical advantages in fill-rate-bound scenarios, and the four DisplayPort outputs make it more suitable for multi-monitor professional workstations. For users who prioritize memory capacity and specific professional API performance over raw compute benchmarks, the Quadro GV100 is the appropriate selection.