AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X represent two very different philosophies of GPU design, and the recorded data makes for a curious comparison: a 2016-era GeForce flagship built on TSMC's 16 nm process against a 7 nm workstation card built around Apple's MPX module format. On paper the newer, denser silicon should dominate, yet the benchmarks in the database tell a different story, with the older Pascal part winning every shared test by a wide margin. Both cards are now end-of-life, which makes this a retrospective matchup, but the numbers still reveal something interesting about how architecture, clocks, and platform ecosystems shape measured performance.

The Verdict

The data points firmly toward the TITAN X Pascal for anyone choosing purely on benchmark performance. It wins both shared tests, geekbench_opencl by 52.2 percent and geekbench_vulkan by 71.3 percent, and its average benchmark score of 72098 sits in the 91st percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus 54828 and the 87th percentile for the W5700X. Its nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro Vega 64 at an average score of 72379, just 0.4 percent ahead, and the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73370, 1.7 percent ahead, placing it in genuinely fast company.

The W5700X argues for itself on other grounds. It carries 16 GB of GDDR6 versus 12 GB of GDDR5X, runs at a 205 W TDP versus 250 W, needs only a 550 W suggested PSU versus 600 W, and posts a far stronger half-precision story at 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 versus a mere 171.5 GFLOPS on the Pascal card. It also holds one benchmark the TITAN lacks entirely: a geekbench_metal score of 75427, which matters specifically in Apple environments. Users in the Mac ecosystem, or those needing serious FP16 throughput and larger memory capacity, have a clear reason to prefer the W5700X despite the deficits elsewhere.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the shared benchmarks?

A: The TITAN X Pascal, decisively. It scores 66696 versus 43810 in geekbench_opencl (52.2 percent ahead) and 77499 versus 45246 in geekbench_vulkan (71.3 percent ahead).

Q: How do the two compare against the broader GPU field?

A: The TITAN X Pascal ranks in the 91st percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average score of 72098, while the W5700X sits in the 87th percentile with an average of 54828.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The W5700X, with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivering 448.0 GB/s. The TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus delivering 480.4 GB/s, so AMD wins capacity while NVIDIA wins bandwidth.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or AI acceleration hardware?

A: Neither. The database records no RT cores and no tensor cores for either product, which is consistent with their pre-ray-tracing era designs.

Q: Which is more power efficient at the socket?

A: The W5700X, with a 205 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, compared to 250 W and 600 W for the TITAN X Pascal.

Q: What did each card cost at launch?

A: The TITAN X Pascal had a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, and the W5700X had a launch MSRP of 999 USD.

Architecture Differences

The generational gap here is substantial. The TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, part of the GeForce 10 generation, fabricated on TSMC's 16 nm process. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.1M per mm². The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip on AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture, produced on TSMC's 7 nm process, fitting 10,300 million transistors into a much smaller 251 mm² die at 41.0M transistors per mm². The density advantage is dramatic, roughly 63 percent higher, and it comes with fewer transistors overall on less than half the silicon area.

Clock behavior diverges sharply too. The Pascal card runs a narrow range from a 1417 MHz base to a 1531 MHz boost. The RDNA card starts lower at 1243 MHz but boosts to 2040 MHz, a much wider spread that suggests aggressive clock scaling under load. Neither card carries RT cores or tensor cores; both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API surface is identical.

The platform story is where they truly part ways. The TITAN X Pascal is a conventional PCIe 3.0 x16 card with one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector. The W5700X uses Apple's MPX interface instead of standard PCIe, with no external power connectors listed in the database, marking it as a card designed for a specific machine ecosystem rather than open workstations.

Specification Differences

The spec sheet splits cleanly into camps. The TITAN X Pascal leads on raw rendering resources: 3584 shading units versus 2560, 224 TMUs versus 160, 96 ROPs versus 64, a pixel rate of 147.0 GPixel/s versus 130.6, a texture rate of 342.9 GTexel/s versus 326.4, and FP32 throughput of 10.97 TFLOPS versus 10.44. Interesting, then, that the FP32 gap is under 5 percent despite the hardware advantage, a sign that the W5700X's much higher boost clock closes much of the difference in peak shader math.

Memory tells the reverse story. The W5700X offers 16 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, for 448.0 GB/s. The TITAN counters with 12 GB of GDDR5X at 10 Gbps effective on a wider 384-bit bus, reaching 480.4 GB/s. Capacity favors AMD, bandwidth favors NVIDIA.

Precision throughput is the starkest contrast: 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio on the W5700X versus 171.5 GFLOPS at 1:64 on the TITAN. The half-precision differential is enormous and clearly favors RDNA for any workload that leans on FP16.

Physically they are unlike each other. The TITAN is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, with DVI, HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The W5700X is a quad-slot, 305 mm-long MPX module with one HDMI 2.0b port and four Thunderbolt outputs. Release timing also differs: August 2016 for the TITAN versus December 2019 for the W5700X, both now end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests are shared between the cards, and the TITAN X Pascal wins both.

In geekbench_opencl, the TITAN scores 66696 against 43810 for the W5700X, a 52.2 percent victory. In geekbench_vulkan the margin widens further: 77499 versus 45246, a 71.3 percent gap. That is a striking result given the W5700X's newer process node and higher boost clock, and it invites the question of what limits the Navi-based card in these compute API tests. The recorded data cannot attribute the cause, but the pattern is consistent across both APIs rather than isolated to one.

The W5700X's lone recorded strong result is its geekbench_metal score of 75427, a test the TITAN X Pascal has no entry for. Within Apple's graphics API the card posts a figure nearly matching the TITAN's best Vulkan number, suggesting the OpenCL and Vulkan results do not represent its ceiling across all APIs.

Context from each card's rival set sharpens the picture. The TITAN's average of 72098 lands within striking distance of the Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72379, 0.4 percent ahead), the RX 6650M (71768, 0.5 percent behind it), the RX 6600 LE (70829, 1.8 percent behind it), and the Vega Frontier Edition (73370, 1.7 percent ahead). The W5700X's average of 54828 places it within roughly 2 percent of the RTX 4080 (54247, 1.1 percent behind it), the RTX 4080 SUPER (54209, 1.1 percent behind it), the RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, 1.6 percent ahead), and the Radeon 8060S (55757, 1.7 percent ahead). Curiously, the rival-list averages reflect different API mixes available for each card, which is worth remembering when comparing the two averages directly.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN X Pascal wins on general-purpose GPU compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL and Vulkan victories, both exceeding 50 percent margins, make it the pick for cross-platform compute workloads where those APIs dominate. Its higher memory bandwidth of 480.4 GB/s, larger ROP and TMU counts, and higher pixel and texture rates also favor traditional rasterization and bandwidth-hungry tasks. Users wanting the higher percentile ranking, 91 versus 87, get it here.

The W5700X wins on capacity, efficiency, and precision. Its 16 GB frame buffer suits larger working sets than the TITAN's 12 GB. Its 205 W TDP and 550 W PSU recommendation make it the lighter power draw. Its 20.89 TFLOPS of FP16 makes it overwhelmingly the card for half-precision workloads, where the TITAN's 1:64 rate leaves it essentially unusable. And in Apple-centric environments with Metal, its 75427 score shows capability the shared benchmarks never surface. The choice, per the data, comes down to whether the workload lives in OpenCL and Vulkan or in Metal and FP16-heavy pipelines.