Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs TITAN V

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared TITAN V with Radeon Pro Vega 64, including specs and performance data.

TITAN V
2017
12 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
44.38
+32.6%

TITAN V outperforms Pro Vega 64 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking80156
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.299.27
ArchitectureVolta (2017−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGV100Vega 10
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date7 December 2017 (6 years ago)27 June 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores51204096
Core clock speed1200 MHz1250 MHz
Boost clock speed1455 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors21,100 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate465.6345.6
Floating-point processing power14.9 TFLOPS11.06 TFLOPS
ROPs9664
TMUs320256
Tensor Cores640no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2HBM2
Maximum RAM amount12 GB16 GB
Memory bus width3072 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed848 MHz786 MHz
Memory bandwidth651.3 GB/s402.4 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.1.125
CUDA7.0-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

TITAN V 44.38
+32.6%
Pro Vega 64 33.48

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.

TITAN V 17125
+32.5%
Pro Vega 64 12920

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.

TITAN V 157496
+121%
Pro Vega 64 71307

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.

TITAN V 150538
+104%
Pro Vega 64 73751

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

1440p152
+38.2%
110−120
−38.2%
4K82
+36.7%
60−65
−36.7%

Cost per frame, $

1440p19.73no data
4K36.57no data

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 44.38 33.48
Recency 7 December 2017 27 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm

TITAN V has a 32.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

Pro Vega 64, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 64 in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA TITAN V
TITAN V
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2 3282 votes

Rate TITAN V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.