AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 are both end-of-life professional-grade GPUs, but they target different workloads despite similar launch eras. The TITAN X Pascal carries a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, while the Radeon Pro WX 9100 launched at 1,599 USD. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows a clear split: the NVIDIA card dominates Vulkan performance, while OpenCL results are nearly identical. Below is a breakdown of how these two cards compare across the available metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the results tell a lopsided story. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100’s 66,605. That is a 0.1% delta in NVIDIA’s favor — essentially a statistical tie. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, you would be hard-pressed to notice a difference between these two cards in real-world tasks. Both deliver near-identical throughput in this API, which is notable given their architectural differences.

Vulkan is where the gap becomes dramatic. The TITAN X Pascal posts 77,499 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro WX 9100 manages only 54,711. That is a 41.7% advantage for NVIDIA — a massive lead. If your software stack uses Vulkan for rendering or compute, the TITAN X Pascal is categorically faster. The delta is so large that no other benchmark result in this comparison comes close to matching it. The AMD card’s Vulkan score is also its weakest of the three tests it ran (the other being Metal at 71,319), which suggests the GCN 5.0 architecture has a notable driver or hardware bottleneck in Vulkan workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The TITAN X Pascal has an average score of 72,098 across its two tests, ranking in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro WX 9100 averages 64,212 across three tests, landing in the 89th percentile. While the percentile difference is only two points, the raw average gap is 7,886 points, driven almost entirely by the Vulkan deficit. The TITAN X Pascal wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins decisively in Vulkan-based workloads. With a 41.7% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan, this card is the clear choice for any application that leverages Vulkan for real-time rendering, game development, or compute tasks. The 77,499 score is the highest single result in this comparison, and it reflects Pascal’s strengths in lower-level API access. If your workflow involves DXVK, Vulkan ray tracing pipelines, or Linux gaming with Vulkan, the TITAN X Pascal is the only rational pick from these two.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no outright wins in the shared benchmarks, but it does have one advantage that the TITAN X Pascal lacks entirely: a Geekbench Metal score. The WX 9100 scores 71,319 in Metal, which is a test the NVIDIA card did not run. For macOS users or those working in Metal-optimized environments, this is a functional win — the TITAN X Pascal has no comparable data point, and Pascal’s lack of Metal support means it cannot be used in those ecosystems. Additionally, the WX 9100’s OpenCL score of 66,605 is within 0.1% of the TITAN’s 66,696, so in pure OpenCL compute the two are interchangeable. If your software only uses OpenCL, neither card gives you a meaningful edge.

For raw throughput specifications, the WX 9100 has higher theoretical FP32 performance at 12.29 TFLOPS versus the TITAN X Pascal’s 10.97 TFLOPS, and it also has more texture units (256 vs 224) and shading units (4096 vs 3584). However, these theoretical advantages do not translate into benchmark victories in the tested workloads. The TITAN X Pascal counters with a higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s) and a higher boost clock (1531 MHz vs 1500 MHz), which helps in rasterization-heavy tasks.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is the superior GPU for anyone using Vulkan. The 41.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is a decisive, non-negotiable advantage. If your applications rely on Vulkan — whether for gaming, professional rendering, or compute — the TITAN X Pascal delivers significantly more performance per dollar of benchmark score. It also has a higher average benchmark score (72,098 vs 64,212) and a higher percentile ranking (91st vs 89th), making it the better all-round performer in this head-to-head.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is only the better choice in one specific scenario: if you need Metal support. Its Geekbench Metal score of 71,319 is the only benchmark result the TITAN X Pascal cannot match, and no NVIDIA card in this comparison offers a Metal score. For macOS-based workflows or Metal-only applications, the WX 9100 is the practical pick. Additionally, its OpenCL performance is effectively tied with the TITAN’s, so in OpenCL-only environments you could choose either card with no measurable loss. However, the WX 9100’s Vulkan deficit is so large that it cannot be recommended for mixed API workloads.

For most buyers, the TITAN X Pascal is the answer. It wins both shared benchmarks, has a higher average score, and its 250 W TDP is only 20 W higher than the WX 9100’s 230 W. The suggested PSU for the TITAN X Pascal is 600 W versus 550 W for the AMD, but that is a minor difference. If you do not specifically require Metal, the TITAN X Pascal is the better investment based on the benchmark evidence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Vulkan score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499, which is 41.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100’s 54,711.

Q: How close are the two cards in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 scores 66,605 — a difference of only 0.1%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 have any benchmark that the NVIDIA card lacks?

A: Yes, the WX 9100 has a Geekbench Metal score of 71,319. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has no Metal benchmark result in this data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 averages 64,212.

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

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is in the 89th percentile.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each card have in the head-to-head tests?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins 2 tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins 0.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip built on TSMC’s 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (25.1M / mm² for NVIDIA vs 25.3M / mm² for AMD), but the architectures diverge significantly.

NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture is from the GeForce 10 generation, while AMD’s GCN 5.0 is from the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. The TITAN X Pascal has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture units, and 96 ROPs. The WX 9100 has more shading units (4,096) and texture units (256), but fewer ROPs (64). This ROP deficit explains the NVIDIA card’s higher pixel rate (147.0 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s), even though the AMD card has a higher texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s vs 342.9 GTexel/s).

Memory architecture differs completely. The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, yielding 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 9100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 483.8 GB/s bandwidth — a marginal 3.4 GB/s advantage. The AMD card’s FP16 performance is 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card’s FP16 is only 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). This makes the WX 9100 dramatically better for FP16 compute, though neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100:

• Process node: 16 nm (NVIDIA) vs 14 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: TSMC (NVIDIA) vs GlobalFoundries (AMD)
• Transistors: 11,800 million (NVIDIA) vs 12,500 million (AMD)
• Die size: 471 mm² (NVIDIA) vs 495 mm² (AMD)
• Base clock: 1417 MHz (NVIDIA) vs 1200 MHz (AMD)
• Boost clock: 1531 MHz (NVIDIA) vs 1500 MHz (AMD)
• Memory clock: 1251 MHz / 10 Gbps effective (NVIDIA) vs 945 MHz / 1890 Mbps effective (AMD)
• Memory size: 12 GB (NVIDIA) vs 16 GB (AMD)
• Memory type: GDDR5X (NVIDIA) vs HBM2 (AMD)
• Memory bus width: 384 bit (NVIDIA) vs 2048 bit (AMD)
• Memory bandwidth: 480.4 GB/s (NVIDIA) vs 483.8 GB/s (AMD)
• Shading units: 3584 (NVIDIA) vs 4096 (AMD)
• Texture units: 224 (NVIDIA) vs 256 (AMD)
• ROPs: 96 (NVIDIA) vs 64 (AMD)
• Pixel rate: 147.0 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) vs 96.00 GPixel/s (AMD)
• Texture rate: 342.9 GTexel/s (NVIDIA) vs 384.0 GTexel/s (AMD)
• FP32: 10.97 TFLOPS (NVIDIA) vs 12.29 TFLOPS (AMD)
• FP16: 171.5 GFLOPS (NVIDIA) vs 24.58 TFLOPS (AMD)
• TDP: 250 W (NVIDIA) vs 230 W (AMD)
• Suggested PSU: 600 W (NVIDIA) vs 550 W (AMD)
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a (NVIDIA) vs 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a (AMD)
• Vulkan API: 1.4 (NVIDIA) vs 1.3 (AMD)
• Release date: 2016-08-01 (NVIDIA) vs 2017-07-09 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: 1,199 USD (NVIDIA) vs 1,599 USD (AMD)
• Height: 112 mm (NVIDIA) vs 111 mm (AMD)
• Width: 40 mm (NVIDIA) vs not specified (AMD)

Both cards share the same length (267 mm), dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and 89th vs 91st percentile rankings.