Radeon Pro Vega II vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V with Radeon Pro Vega II, including specs and performance data.
TITAN V outperforms Pro II by a moderate 10% 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 | 111 | 140 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.10 | 6.04 |
| Power efficiency | 12.61 | 6.05 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (8 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $2,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro Vega II has 47% better value for money than TITAN V.
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 | 5120 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 440.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 320 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 4 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | HBM2 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 806 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | 825.3 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.0 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 1440p | 152
+16.9%
| 130−140
−16.9%
|
| 4K | 82
+17.1%
| 70−75
−17.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
−16.6%
| 16.92
+16.6%
|
| 4K | 36.57
−16.4%
| 31.41
+16.4%
|
- Pro Vega II has 17% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro Vega II has 16% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.95 | 37.29 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 475 Watt |
TITAN V has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, and 90% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between TITAN V and Radeon Pro Vega II.
Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
