NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX TITAN X, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, posts an average benchmark score of 36305 across Geekbench tests. This places it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, a strong showing for a card released in 2015. The data shows a consistent performance profile across compute workloads: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 49038 leads, followed by OpenCL at 41155 and Metal at 18723. The 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus delivers 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which underpins its ability to handle large datasets without bottlenecking. The 3072 shading units and 192 texture mapping units translate to a texture rate of 209.1 GTexel/s, while the 96 ROPs sustain a pixel rate of 104.5 GPixel/s. In terms of raw compute, the card reaches 6.691 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a figure that remains competitive in legacy workloads but shows its age against modern architectures.

Benchmark Performance

The GTX TITAN X’s average score of 36305 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals, where the margin between first and last is a mere 1.4%. This is a narrow band, and the data indicates that the TITAN X is neither a clear winner nor a laggard in this specific group. Against the NVIDIA T1000, the TITAN X leads by 0.1% (36282 vs 36305), a negligible difference that effectively puts them at parity in aggregate compute. The AMD Radeon RX 5300M, however, edges out the TITAN X by 0.2% with a score of 36371, meaning the TITAN X is effectively tied with a mobile-class part in raw benchmark terms. The AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE trails by 0.6% (36101), while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo sits 1.2% behind at 35860. These deltas are within run-to-run variance, so the benchmark results indicate that the TITAN X’s position is defined more by its feature set and memory capacity than by a decisive compute advantage.

Looking at individual tests, the Vulkan score of 49038 is the standout, suggesting that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture handles modern API overhead reasonably well. The OpenCL score of 41155 is 16.1% lower than Vulkan, which points to driver maturity differences rather than hardware limitations. The Metal score of 18723 is significantly lower, representing only 45.5% of the OpenCL result; this reflects the card’s primary design for Windows and Linux environments, with Apple’s API receiving less optimization. The 80th percentile ranking confirms that despite its age, the TITAN X outperforms the majority of GPUs in the database, though the nearest rivals show that newer mid-range and older high-end parts converge at this performance level.

Who Should Consider It

Based on the benchmark data, the GTX TITAN X is suited for users running compute-heavy applications at 1080p or 1440p resolutions. The 12 GB VRAM is the card’s primary asset; it is double the capacity of most rivals in its score band, which matters for texture-heavy workloads, large scene buffers, or machine learning inference datasets that exceed 6 GB. For gaming at 1080p, the 104.5 GPixel/s fill rate and 6.691 TFLOPS are sufficient for high settings in titles from its era, but the data does not support claims of 4K ultra performance. The 336.6 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 1440p but will become a limiting factor at 4K with high-resolution textures, where the card’s compute lead over rivals narrows to statistical noise.

The Vulkan score of 49038 suggests that users on modern Linux or Windows systems with Vulkan-based renderers will see the best relative performance. Conversely, the low Metal score of 18723 means macOS users should look elsewhere, as the card’s compute potential is halved on that platform. The end-of-life production status indicates that this is not a card for new builds; it is a legacy option for those who already own one or require a specific feature set like the 384-bit bus for memory-intensive tasks. The 250 W TDP and dual-slot cooler mean it fits standard ATX cases, but the 267 mm length requires checking chassis clearance.

How It Compares

NVIDIA T1000: The T1000 matches the TITAN X almost exactly, scoring 36282 versus 36305, a 0.1% difference. This is a statistical tie. The TITAN X offers 12 GB of memory versus the T1000’s likely smaller allocation, but the benchmark data shows no compute advantage. The T1000 is a professional card with lower power draw, making the TITAN X’s only edge its larger frame buffer for specific workloads.

AMD Radeon RX 5300M: The RX 5300M scores 36371, beating the TITAN X by 0.2%. This is surprising given the RX 5300M is a mobile part, but the data is clear. The TITAN X’s 12 GB VRAM and 384-bit bus are far superior for memory-bound tasks, yet in raw compute, the newer RDNA architecture extracts more performance per watt. The TITAN X’s 250 W TDP is substantially higher, yet it cannot outperform a laptop GPU in this benchmark suite.

AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE: The RX 7900 GRE scores 36101, trailing the TITAN X by 0.6%. This is the smallest deficit in the group, but it is telling that a modern high-end card from 2023 only slightly underperforms a 2015 flagship in these specific Geekbench tests. The TITAN X’s advantage is likely due to its higher memory bandwidth relative to the compute workload, but the RX 7900 GRE has far superior modern features like ray tracing and much higher memory capacity, which the benchmark scores do not capture.

AMD Radeon Pro Duo: The Pro Duo scores 35860, which is 1.2% behind the TITAN X. This dual-GPU professional card was expensive and power-hungry, yet it loses outright in this aggregate metric. The TITAN X’s single-GPU design with 12 GB unified memory is more efficient for workloads that do not scale well across dual dies, explaining the delta. The Pro Duo’s lower score suggests that driver support and crossfire scaling issues hurt its practical performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the GTX TITAN X?

A: The average benchmark score is 36305 across the three Geekbench tests, placing it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How does it compare to the AMD Radeon RX 5300M?

A: The RX 5300M scores 36371, which is 0.2% higher than the TITAN X. This makes the two effectively tied in aggregate compute, despite the TITAN X being a desktop card with a 250 W TDP.

Q: What is the best-case benchmark result for this card?

A: The highest score is in Geekbench Vulkan at 49038, which is 19.3% higher than the OpenCL score of 41155 and 162% higher than the Metal score of 18723.

Q: Does the TITAN X support modern APIs?

A: Yes, the data lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, which covers most modern applications.

Q: How much memory does it have and what is the bus width?

A: It has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 336.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is 999 USD, which was set at its release in March 2015.

Power and Cooling

The GTX TITAN X has a TDP of 250 W, which is a substantial power draw for its era. The suggested PSU rating is 600 W, meaning any system with this card should have a power supply at or above that wattage. The card requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, so the PSU must have both available. The dual-slot cooler is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide, which fits in most mid-tower cases but requires checking clearance against drive cages. The 28 nm TSMC process node with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die results in a transistor density of 13.3M per mm², which explains the high power draw relative to newer cards. The 250 W TDP means that adequate case airflow is necessary, and the card will exhaust heat into the chassis rather than out the rear. For sustained compute loads like the Vulkan benchmark, the boost clock of 1089 MHz will be maintained only if thermals allow; the base clock is 1000 MHz. The memory runs at 1753 MHz with 7 Gbps effective data rate, which is a fixed figure and does not scale with power. There is no support for factory overclocking profiles in the data, so users must manually adjust if they want higher clocks, which will increase power draw beyond the 250 W TDP. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is sufficient for this card’s bandwidth needs, and the display outputs—1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2—allow for multi-monitor setups, though the power connector requirement means that users with older PSUs may need adapters.