Radeon RX Vega M vs GeForce GTX TITAN
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX TITAN and Radeon RX Vega M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
TITAN outperforms M by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 311 | 376 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.88 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.03 | 80.32 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | Vega |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 February 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2688 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 837 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 4,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 196.2 | 38.08 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.709 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 8 |
| TMUs | 224 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384-bit GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | no data |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.60 | 15.67 |
| Recency | 19 February 2013 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX TITAN has a 25.1% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX TITAN is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
