NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 135,218, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 72,098. This places the RTX 4000 Ada at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, versus the 91st percentile for the TITAN X Pascal.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL workloads?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 versus 66,696 for the TITAN X Pascal, a delta of 119.8%. This means the newer card more than doubles the older card's compute output in this test.

Q: Does the TITAN X Pascal win any benchmark category?

A: No. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins both. The TITAN X Pascal records zero wins.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation features 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 480.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The TITAN X Pascal has a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The newer card draws significantly less power.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two cards?

A: The TITAN X Pascal was released on 2016-08-01, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation launched on 2023-08-08. The TITAN X Pascal is marked as end-of-life, whereas the RTX 4000 Ada is still in active production.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent vastly different architectural eras. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is built on the AD104 chip using the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². In contrast, the TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip with the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 11,800 million transistors spread across a much larger 471 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.1M per mm².

The compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 64 raster output units, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The TITAN X Pascal has 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but it lacks RT cores and tensor cores entirely, reflecting its pre-ray-tracing design.

Clock speeds also differ. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and boosts to 2175 MHz. The TITAN X Pascal operates at a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1531 MHz. Memory clocks show a similar generational split: the RTX 4000 Ada uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the TITAN X Pascal uses 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) GDDR5X.

The feature set reflects the newer architecture's capabilities. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The TITAN X Pascal lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4000 Ada also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the TITAN X Pascal uses the older PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Physical design differs as well. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot card measuring 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with a 1x 16-pin power connector. The TITAN X Pascal is a dual-slot card at 267 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide, using a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power configuration. Display outputs also differ: the RTX 4000 Ada has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the TITAN X Pascal has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive generational advantage for the RTX 4000 Ada Generation. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593 against the TITAN X Pascal's 66,696. That is a 119.8% lead, meaning the Ada card delivers more than double the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is so large that it dwarfs any other comparison in the recorded data.

The Vulkan test narrows the margin somewhat but still favors the newer card heavily. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 123,842, while the TITAN X Pascal manages 77,499. This represents a 59.8% advantage for the Ada card. While the absolute gap is smaller than in OpenCL, it remains a substantial performance lead.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's average score of 135,218 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472). It effectively trades blows with the NVIDIA A10M, which scores 135,230 with a 0% delta. The TITAN X Pascal, by contrast, sits at 72,098, which is 1.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829) and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370).

The win tally is unambiguous: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins both head-to-head tests, while the TITAN X Pascal wins none. The average benchmark score gap is also stark: 135,218 versus 72,098, a difference of 63,120 points. This is not a close contest by any metric in the database.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice from the recorded data. It more than doubles the TITAN X Pascal in OpenCL and leads by nearly 60% in Vulkan. The average benchmark score of 135,218 also places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 91st percentile for the older card.

The TITAN X Pascal still holds relevance in specific scenarios. Its 480.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the RTX 4000 Ada's 360.0 GB/s, which could matter for certain bandwidth-bound tasks. It also has a larger die (471 mm² versus 294 mm²) and more ROPs (96 versus 64), though these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

For power-sensitive deployments, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is vastly more efficient. Its 130 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU contrast with the TITAN X Pascal's 250 W TDP and 600 W PSU requirement. The newer card delivers higher performance at nearly half the power envelope.

For users needing modern features like ray tracing acceleration or tensor core processing, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the only option, as the TITAN X Pascal lacks both RT and tensor cores. The Ada card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Pascal card is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The production status is a decisive factor. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is active and current, while the TITAN X Pascal is end-of-life. Anyone purchasing today should choose the Ada card based on performance, efficiency, and feature support. The TITAN X Pascal is a legacy part with no recorded advantage in any benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation | NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal |

|-------|-------------------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Pascal |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2175 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 480.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 192 | 224 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 147.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 342.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 26.73 TFLOPS | 10.97 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 130 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Length | 245 mm (9.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not specified | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2016-08-01 |

| Launch MSRP | Not provided | 1,199 USD |