GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins 8 of the 9 head-to-head comparisons against the Quadro RTX 8000, with the Quadro taking only a single narrow victory. The largest margin of victory comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the TITAN RTX scores 148,755 against the Quadro’s 125,554, a commanding 18.5% advantage. This is not a small gap; it represents a substantial lead in raw compute throughput for applications that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

DirectX 12 performance shows another significant divergence. The TITAN RTX posts a score of 88 in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, while the Quadro RTX 8000 manages 79. That 11.4% difference is meaningful for modern gaming and DirectX 12-based workloads, indicating the TITAN’s architecture is better tuned for the latest graphics API. Similarly, in DirectX 10, the TITAN RTX leads with 147 versus 137, a 7.3% edge, suggesting the advantage persists across older API generations as well.

Vulkan performance also favors the TITAN RTX, though by a smaller margin. The TITAN scores 132,180 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the Quadro’s 125,781, a 5.1% lead. In the Passmark DirectX 9 test, the TITAN RTX again comes out ahead with 223 versus 211, a 5.7% difference. The narrowest wins for the TITAN RTX occur in Passmark DirectX 11 (189 vs 188, just 0.5%) and Passmark GPU Compute (10,034 vs 9,992, a 0.4% edge), these are essentially statistical ties, with the TITAN barely edging ahead.

The single Quadro RTX 8000 victory comes in the Passmark G2D test, scoring 866 against the TITAN’s 860. That 0.7% difference is negligible in practical terms, but it does indicate the Quadro holds a marginal advantage in 2D graphics throughput. In the more demanding Passmark G3D test, the TITAN RTX wins decisively with 20,491 versus 19,799, a 3.5% lead. Overall, the average benchmark score reflects this trend: the TITAN RTX averages 31,676, while the Quadro RTX 8000 averages 31,401, a 0.9% difference in favor of the TITAN.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental silicon: the TU102 chip on TSMC’s 12 nm process, with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 24.7M per mm². This means the core architecture is essentially the same, both feature 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The raw compute capabilities match exactly: FP32 performance is 16.31 TFLOPS on both, and FP16 is 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) on both. Pixel rate and texture rate are also identical at 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s respectively.

The differences in architecture are subtle but present. The TITAN RTX has a base clock of 1350 MHz, while the Quadro RTX 8000 starts slightly higher at 1395 MHz. Both boost to the same 1770 MHz, so the effective clock speeds under load are likely similar, but the Quadro’s higher base clock could give it a slight edge in sustained workloads that don’t hit boost frequencies. The memory configuration is where the cards diverge significantly: both use GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective), but the TITAN RTX has 24 GB of VRAM while the Quadro RTX 8000 doubles that to 48 GB.

The TITAN RTX is classified under the GeForce 20 generation, while the Quadro RTX 8000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. Their predecessors and successors differ accordingly: the TITAN RTX follows GeForce 10 and leads to GeForce 30, whereas the Quadro RTX 8000 follows Quadro Volta and leads to Workstation Ampere. Power requirements also differ, the TITAN RTX has a 280 W TDP with 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Quadro RTX 8000 draws 260 W with a single 6-pin and single 8-pin connector. Both suggest a 600 W power supply. The physical dimensions are nearly identical in length (267 mm) and height (116 mm for TITAN, 111 mm for Quadro), with the TITAN being 35 mm wide; the Quadro’s width is not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM, and does it matter for benchmarks?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, exactly double the TITAN RTX’s 24 GB. Despite this capacity difference, the TITAN RTX still wins 8 of 9 benchmarks, indicating the extra memory does not translate to higher scores in these specific tests.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two cards?

A: Yes. The Quadro RTX 8000 has a base clock of 1395 MHz, which is 45 MHz higher than the TITAN RTX’s 1350 MHz. Both share the same 1770 MHz boost clock.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The TITAN RTX averages 31,676, while the Quadro RTX 8000 averages 31,401. That puts the TITAN RTX 0.9% ahead, a small but consistent margin across the benchmark suite.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. API support is identical, so differences in benchmark scores are not due to API capability gaps.

Q: Which card performs better in compute-heavy workloads?

A: The TITAN RTX edges out the Quadro RTX 8000 in Passmark GPU Compute with a score of 10,034 versus 9,992, a 0.4% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN’s lead is much larger at 18.5%.

Q: Are the core counts exactly the same?

A: Yes. Both cards feature 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The silicon is identical in these respects; only clock speeds and memory capacity differ.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA TITAN RTX and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000:

• Base Clock: TITAN RTX at 1350 MHz, Quadro RTX 8000 at 1395 MHz
• Memory Size: TITAN RTX has 24 GB, Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB
• TDP: TITAN RTX at 280 W, Quadro RTX 8000 at 260 W
• Power Connectors: TITAN RTX uses 2x 8-pin, Quadro RTX 8000 uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Height: TITAN RTX at 116 mm (4.6 inches), Quadro RTX 8000 at 111 mm (4.4 inches)
• Width: TITAN RTX at 35 mm (1.4 inches), Quadro RTX 8000 not specified
• Display Outputs: TITAN RTX has 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C; Quadro RTX 8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
• Generation: TITAN RTX is GeForce 20, Quadro RTX 8000 is Quadro Turing (Tx000)
• Predecessor: TITAN RTX follows GeForce 10, Quadro RTX 8000 follows Quadro Volta
• Successor: TITAN RTX leads to GeForce 30, Quadro RTX 8000 leads to Workstation Ampere
• Release Date: TITAN RTX on 2018-12-17, Quadro RTX 8000 on 2018-08-12
• Launch MSRP: TITAN RTX at 2,499 USD, Quadro RTX 8000 at 9,999 USD

Identical specifications include the TU102 chip, Turing architecture, 12 nm process, 18,600 million transistors, 754 mm² die size, 1770 MHz boost clock, 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective), GDDR6 memory type, 384-bit bus width, 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, 576 tensor cores, 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, 509.8 GTexel/s texture rate, 16.31 TFLOPS FP32, 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), 600 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, 267 mm length, dual-slot width, and end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX is the faster card in nearly every benchmark category. It wins 8 out of 9 head-to-head comparisons, with the largest margin being an 18.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The only Quadro victory is a 0.7% margin in Passmark G2D, which is practically irrelevant for most workloads. The TITAN RTX also holds a 0.9% advantage in average benchmark score (31,676 vs 31,401) and sits at the same 75th percentile among all GPUs.

The Quadro RTX 8000’s redeeming feature is its 48 GB of VRAM, double the TITAN RTX’s 24 GB. If a workload requires more than 24 GB of memory, the Quadro is the only choice between these two. However, the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from that extra memory in any of the tested scenarios. The Quadro also has a higher base clock (1395 MHz vs 1350 MHz), but both boost to 1770 MHz, and the benchmarks reflect no net advantage for the Quadro.

The TITAN RTX is also more power-hungry at 280 W versus 260 W, requiring two 8-pin connectors instead of one 6-pin and one 8-pin. This is a minor consideration for most builds, but it does mean the TITAN RTX needs a power supply with sufficient 8-pin connectors. The TITAN RTX also offers an HDMI 2.0 output, which the Quadro lacks entirely, the Quadro only has DisplayPort outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus USB Type-C).

For pure performance, the choice is clear: the TITAN RTX wins. For memory capacity, the Quadro RTX 8000 dominates. The launch MSRP reflects this positioning, the TITAN RTX at 2,499 USD versus the Quadro RTX 8000 at 9,999 USD, but that price difference is not reflected in benchmark performance, where the TITAN RTX consistently leads.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins in: Geekbench OpenCL (18.5% ahead), Passmark DirectX 12 (11.4% ahead), Passmark DirectX 10 (7.3% ahead), Passmark DirectX 9 (5.7% ahead), Geekbench Vulkan (5.1% ahead), Passmark G3D (3.5% ahead), Passmark DirectX 11 (0.5% ahead), and Passmark GPU Compute (0.4% ahead). This covers every major 3D graphics API and compute workload in the benchmark suite. The TITAN RTX is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw graphics performance, DirectX 12 gaming, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan applications. Its 24 GB of VRAM is still substantial for most professional workloads, and its 2x 8-pin power requirement is manageable with a suitable PSU.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins in: Passmark G2D (0.7% ahead), and it offers 48 GB of VRAM. The 2D graphics advantage is marginal, a single point difference in the score, and unlikely to be noticeable in real-world use. The Quadro’s real strength is memory capacity: 48 GB is double the TITAN RTX’s 24 GB, which is critical for datasets, simulations, or rendering scenes that exceed 24 GB. The Quadro also has a lower TDP (260 W vs 280 W) and uses a less demanding power connector configuration (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin instead of 2x 8-pin), which could simplify power supply requirements. Its higher base clock of 139