NVIDIA RTX A4000 vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall victor, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX secures 8 out of 10 head-to-head wins, yet the RTX A4000 claims two notable victories in legacy and 2D-focused tests.

The most decisive result comes from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Here, the TITAN RTX scores 3794 against the A4000's 2604, a commanding 45.7% advantage. This is the largest delta across the entire benchmark suite and highlights the TITAN's raw rendering muscle in modern DirectX 12 titles. The Geekbench OpenCL test tells a similar story, with the TITAN RTX posting 144858 points versus 105739 for the A4000, a 37% gap that underscores its compute superiority in general-purpose GPU workloads.

The gap narrows considerably in other areas. In Geekbench Vulkan, the TITAN RTX leads with 136073 against 127645, but the margin shrinks to just 6.6%. PassMark G3D shows a closer contest as well: 20491 for the TITAN versus 19459 for the A4000, a 5.3% difference. The PassMark GPU Compute result is the tightest of all, with the TITAN RTX edging out the A4000 by only 2.8% (10034 versus 9760).

The legacy DirectX benchmarks favor the TITAN RTX with double-digit margins. PassMark DirectX 10 shows 147 versus 126, a 16.7% lead. DirectX 11 widens to 19.6% (189 versus 158), and DirectX 12 follows at 22.2% (88 versus 72). These results suggest the older Turing architecture retains strong driver optimization and feature support for established API workloads.

The A4000's two wins are worth examining. PassMark DirectX 9 shows the A4000 ahead at 240 versus 223, a 7.1% reversal. More significantly, the PassMark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics and display-related performance, sees the A4000 post 1024 against 860, a 16% advantage. This suggests the Ampere card handles desktop composition and 2D acceleration tasks more efficiently, likely due to its newer display engine and memory subsystem design.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The TITAN RTX holds an average score of 31676, while the A4000 averages 26683. The TITAN also sits at the 76th percentile among all GPUs in the database, compared to the 72nd percentile for the A4000. The nearest rivals for each card show they occupy different competitive tiers: the TITAN RTX sits within 1.5% of cards like the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell and the Intel Arc Pro A30M, while the A4000 trades blows within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct generations and design philosophies. The TITAN RTX uses the TU102 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It packs 18,600 million transistors across a massive 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The A4000, by contrast, employs the GA104 chip from the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. Its 17,400 million transistors occupy a much smaller 392 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 44.4 million per square millimeter.

The clock behavior differs notably. The TITAN RTX runs at a 1350 MHz base clock and boosts to 1770 MHz. The A4000 starts much lower at 735 MHz base but boosts to 1560 MHz. This lower base clock is typical of workstation-oriented cards that prioritize power efficiency over sustained high clocks at idle or light loads.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The TITAN RTX carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A4000 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, resulting in 448.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, but the wider bus gives the TITAN a substantial bandwidth advantage.

The compute resource allocation tells a more nuanced story. The A4000 actually has more shading units, 6144 versus 4608 for the TITAN RTX. However, the TITAN counters with more texture mapping units (288 versus 192) and identical ROPs (96 each). In ray tracing, the TITAN RTX holds a clear edge with 72 RT cores versus 48. Tensor core counts also favor the TITAN dramatically: 576 versus 192.

The FP32 and FP16 throughput reveals architectural differences. The A4000 achieves 19.17 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio where FP16 does not double throughput. The TITAN RTX posts 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 but jumps to 32.62 TFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio that leverages its tensor cores and Turing's dedicated FP16 paths. This makes the TITAN significantly faster in mixed-precision workloads that can exploit FP16 acceleration.

Pixel and texture rates follow the raw resource counts. The TITAN RTX achieves 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s, while the A4000 trails at 149.8 GPixel/s and 299.5 GTexel/s. The TITAN's higher clocks and wider memory bus drive these advantages.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN RTX dominates in scenarios that stress raw compute, high-bandwidth memory access, and ray tracing. Its 45.7% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 makes it the clear choice for modern game rendering at high resolutions or with heavy effects. The 37% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL signals strength in GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulations, and data processing that use OpenCL frameworks. The 72 RT cores versus 48 for the A4000 positions the TITAN as the better option for ray-traced workloads, whether in games or professional DCC applications. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 672 GB/s bandwidth also suit large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-model training scenarios where memory footprint exceeds 16 GB.

The A4000, despite losing the overall benchmark count, wins in specific niches. Its PassMark G2D victory (1024 versus 860, a 16% lead) indicates superior performance in 2D workflows, multi-monitor desktop environments, and display-heavy tasks. The single-slot design and 140 W TDP make it far easier to integrate into dense workstation builds where space and power are constrained. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides twice the bus bandwidth of the TITAN's PCIe 3.0 x16, which can benefit workloads that frequently transfer data between CPU and GPU. The A4000's higher shading unit count (6144) may also give it an edge in pure shader-bound workloads that do not rely on memory bandwidth or RT acceleration.

The A4000's lower power draw (140 W versus 280 W) and single 6-pin connector versus dual 8-pin make it suitable for systems with modest PSUs (300 W suggested versus 600 W). Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-display configurations directly, while the TITAN RTX offers 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. For users prioritizing maximum compute and rendering performance without power constraints, the TITAN RTX is the clear winner. For those needing a compact, efficient card for professional visualization, 2D-heavy workflows, or multi-monitor setups, the A4000 presents a compelling alternative.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in DirectX 12 gaming workloads?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN RTX is significantly faster. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, it scores 3794 versus 2604 for the RTX A4000, a 45.7% advantage. PassMark DirectX 12 also favors the TITAN RTX at 88 versus 72, a 22.2% lead.

Q: Does the RTX A4000 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two of the ten head-to-head tests. It leads in PassMark DirectX 9 (240 versus 223, a 7.1% margin) and PassMark G2D (1024 versus 860, a 16% margin), indicating strengths in legacy API support and 2D desktop acceleration.

Q: How do the memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s. The RTX A4000 has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s. Both use GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective speed, but the TITAN's wider bus provides 50% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more compute units?

A: The RTX A4000 has more shading units (6144 versus 4608), but the TITAN RTX has more texture mapping units (288 versus 192), more RT cores (72 versus 48), and more tensor cores (576 versus 192). The TITAN also achieves higher FP16 throughput at 32.62 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the power and physical size differences?

A: The TITAN RTX has a 280 W TDP, uses dual 8-pin power connectors, and requires a 600 W suggested PSU. It is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length. The RTX A4000 has a 140 W TDP, uses a single 6-pin connector, requires a 300 W PSU, and is a single-slot card at 241 mm length.

Q: Which card ranks higher in the overall GPU database?

A: The TITAN RTX holds the 76th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 31676. The RTX A4000 sits at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 26683.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA TITAN RTX | NVIDIA RTX A4000 |

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

| Chip | TU102 | GA104 |

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1350 MHz | 735 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 288 | 192 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 149.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.31 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 280 W | 140 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 116 mm (4.6 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2018-12-17 | 2021-04-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not available |