To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.
TITAN RTX vs GeForce RTX 2080
Price now
635$
Games supported
100%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1515
- Max video memory 8192
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 14000
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1350
- Max video memory 24 GB
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 14000
- Maximum resolution
Price now
1450$
Games supported
100%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 37 | 36 |
| Value for money | 31.28 | 12.74 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Turing TU104 | TU102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 August 2018 (4 years old) | 18 December 2018 (4 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $2,499 |
| Current price | $635 (0.9x MSRP) | $1450 (0.6x MSRP) |
Value for money
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2944 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 1515 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1710 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 215 Watt | 280 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 314.6 | 509.8 |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 7.5 |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 49% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 23% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 24% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 36% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 101% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 23% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 22% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 8% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
TITAN RTX outperforms GeForce RTX 2080 by 39% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 144
−11.1%
| 160
+11.1%
|
| 1440p | 101
−11.9%
| 113
+11.9%
|
| 4K | 71
−21.1%
| 86
+21.1%
|
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+6.3%
|
79
−6.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 105
+1%
|
104
−1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 98
−6.1%
|
104
+6.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 187
−13.9%
|
213
+13.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+6.3%
|
79
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
−41%
|
165
+41%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 105
−28.6%
|
135
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 156
−19.9%
|
187
+19.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 165
−34.5%
|
222
+34.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 124
−14.5%
|
142
+14.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 134
+0.8%
|
133
−0.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 119
−46.2%
|
174
+46.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110
−1.8%
|
112
+1.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 91
−4.4%
|
95
+4.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 83
−6%
|
88
+6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 155
−5.8%
|
164
+5.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 162
−11.1%
|
180
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+6.3%
|
79
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
−39.3%
|
156
+39.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 102
−26.5%
|
129
+26.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 153
−21.6%
|
186
+21.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 162
−27.2%
|
206
+27.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 102
−15.7%
|
118
+15.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
−48.9%
|
134
+48.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 80
−16.3%
|
93
+16.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 114
−44.7%
|
165
+44.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
−47.5%
|
267
+47.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 98
+1%
|
97
−1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 68
−16.2%
|
79
+16.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 73
−9.6%
|
80
+9.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 145
−10.3%
|
160
+10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+7.7%
|
78
−7.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
−37.7%
|
146
+37.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 92
−27.2%
|
117
+27.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
−32.6%
|
175
+32.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 106
−31.1%
|
139
+31.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 79
−8.9%
|
86
+8.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 110
−19.1%
|
131
+19.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 119
−21.8%
|
145
+21.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 74
−21.6%
|
90
+21.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
−41.7%
|
85
+41.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 52
−21.2%
|
63
+21.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 90
−34.4%
|
121
+34.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58
+11.5%
|
50−55
−11.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60
−10%
|
66
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 125
+30.2%
|
95−100
−30.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−65%
|
66
+65%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
−35.4%
|
134
+35.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 89
−28.1%
|
114
+28.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
−33.1%
|
157
+33.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 58
−20.7%
|
70
+20.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65
−21.5%
|
79
+21.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65
−26.2%
|
82
+26.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 42
−28.6%
|
54
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
−41%
|
55
+41%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 34
−20.6%
|
41
+20.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 47
−40.4%
|
66
+40.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
−35.5%
|
103
+35.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 41
−26.8%
|
52
+26.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 38
−13.2%
|
43
+13.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
−27.6%
|
97
+27.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−83.3%
|
33
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−35.6%
|
80
+35.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 62
−32.3%
|
82
+32.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
−40.7%
|
114
+40.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35
−22.9%
|
43
+22.9%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 47.73 | 47.90 |
| Recency | 27 August 2018 | 18 December 2018 |
| Cost | $699 | $2499 |
| Memory bus width | 256 | 384 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2944 | 4608 |
| Memory bandwidth | 448 | 672 |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 215 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of GeForce RTX 2080 by AMD
The nearest GeForce RTX 2080's AMD equivalent is Radeon RX 6700, which is faster by 2% and higher by 3 positions in our performance rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce RTX 2080:
Competitors of TITAN RTX by AMD
The nearest TITAN RTX's AMD equivalent is Radeon RX 6700, which is faster by 1% and higher by 2 positions in our performance rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to TITAN RTX:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
