Arc Pro B50 vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Titan X Pascal with Arc Pro B50, including specs and performance data.
Pro B50 outperforms Titan X Pascal by a minimal 1% 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 | 198 | 194 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.75 | 47.43 |
| Power efficiency | 9.49 | 34.32 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Xe2 (2024) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | BMG-G21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 5 September 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Arc Pro B50 has 725% better value for money than Titan X Pascal.
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 | 3584 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1417 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 19,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 332.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.97 TFLOPS | 10.65 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 16 |
| TMUs | 224 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 3 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 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 167 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-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 | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 124
+3.3%
| 120−130
−3.3%
|
| 1440p | 74
+5.7%
| 70−75
−5.7%
|
| 4K | 58
+5.5%
| 55−60
−5.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.67
−232%
| 2.91
+232%
|
| 1440p | 16.20
−225%
| 4.99
+225%
|
| 4K | 20.67
−226%
| 6.35
+226%
|
- Arc Pro B50 has 232% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Arc Pro B50 has 225% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Arc Pro B50 has 226% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+12.3%
|
300−310
−12.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+3.8%
|
80−85
−3.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 119
−0.8%
|
120−130
+0.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+2%
|
150−160
−2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 291
+0.3%
|
290−300
−0.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+1.3%
|
160−170
−1.3%
|
| Fortnite | 210
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+5.8%
|
120−130
−5.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 119
−0.8%
|
120−130
+0.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+2.7%
|
110−120
−2.7%
|
| Valorant | 296
+2.1%
|
290−300
−2.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+5%
|
140−150
−5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 205
+2.5%
|
200−210
−2.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2.2%
|
270−280
−2.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 252
+0.8%
|
250−260
−0.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
−0.7%
|
150−160
+0.7%
|
| Fortnite | 199
−0.5%
|
200−210
+0.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+0.8%
|
120−130
−0.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+6%
|
100−105
−6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 72
+2.9%
|
70−75
−2.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+1.1%
|
95−100
−1.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+2.7%
|
110−120
−2.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+2.2%
|
180−190
−2.2%
|
| Valorant | 275
+1.9%
|
270−280
−1.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+5.4%
|
130−140
−5.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+3.6%
|
55−60
−3.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 232
+0.9%
|
230−240
−0.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+1.8%
|
110−120
−1.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+2%
|
100−105
−2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Valorant | 181
+0.6%
|
180−190
−0.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+0.9%
|
110−120
−0.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+3%
|
100−105
−3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+5.5%
|
55−60
−5.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.9%
|
170−180
−2.9%
|
| Valorant | 258
−0.8%
|
260−270
+0.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−1.2%
|
85−90
+1.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+1%
|
100−105
−1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 41
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
−1%
|
100−105
+1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+4.6%
|
65−70
−4.6%
|
| Valorant | 257
−1.2%
|
260−270
+1.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+1.4%
|
70−75
−1.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+6%
|
50−55
−6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+4.3%
|
70−75
−4.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 22
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and Arc Pro B50 compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 3% faster in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal is 6% faster in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 5% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.46 | 29.82 |
| Recency | 2 August 2016 | 5 September 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
Arc Pro B50 has a 1.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Titan X Pascal and Arc Pro B50.
Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop graphics card while Arc Pro B50 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.
