Arc Pro B70 vs Titan X Pascal

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Titan X Pascal with Arc Pro B70, including specs and performance data.

Titan X Pascal
2016, $1,199
12 GB GDDR5X, 250 Watt
31.27
Arc Pro B70
2026, $949
32 GB GDDR6, 230 Watt
45.06
+44.1%

Pro B70 outperforms Titan X Pascal by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking20596
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.1627.36
Power efficiency9.6915.18
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Xe2-HPG (2025−2026)
GPU code nameGP102BMG-G31
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date2 August 2016 (10 years ago)26 March 2026 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $949

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Arc Pro B70 has 344% better value for money than Titan X Pascal.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores35844096
Core clock speed1417 MHz2280 MHz
Boost clock speed1531 MHz2800 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology16 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate342.9716.8
Floating-point processing power10.97 TFLOPSno data
ROPs96128
TMUs224256
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache1.3 MBno data
L2 Cache3 MB24 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5XGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB32 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1251 MHz2375 MHz
Memory bandwidth480.4 GB/s608.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI++
G-SYNC support+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
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.

Titan X Pascal 31.27
Arc Pro B70 45.06
+44.1%

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 X Pascal 13026
Arc Pro B70 18774
+44.1%
Samples: 31

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 HD124170−180
+37.1%
1440p74
−26%
100−110
4K5880−85
+37.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.675.58
+42.3%
1440p16.209.49
+41.4%
4K20.6711.86
+42.6%
  • Arc Pro B70 has 42% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc Pro B70 has 41% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc Pro B70 has 43% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 173 240−250
+38.7%
Counter-Strike 2 337 450−500
+33.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 83 110−120
+32.5%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 126 180−190
+42.9%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 127 180−190
+41.7%
Battlefield 5 153 220−230
+43.8%
Counter-Strike 2 291 400−450
+37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 74 100−105
+35.1%
Far Cry 5 162 230−240
+42%
Fortnite 210 300−310
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 127 180−190
+41.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 113 160−170
+41.6%
Valorant 296 400−450
+35.1%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 78 110−120
+41%
Battlefield 5 147 210−220
+42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 205 290−300
+41.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 350−400
+26.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 65 90−95
+38.5%
Dota 2 252 350−400
+38.9%
Far Cry 5 149 210−220
+40.9%
Fortnite 199 280−290
+40.7%
Forza Horizon 4 121 170−180
+40.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 160 230−240
+43.8%
Metro Exodus 96 130−140
+35.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 113 160−170
+41.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 184 260−270
+41.3%
Valorant 275 350−400
+27.3%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 137 190−200
+38.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 57 80−85
+40.4%
Dota 2 232 300−310
+29.3%
Far Cry 5 140 200−210
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 112 160−170
+42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 102 140−150
+37.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 95 130−140
+36.8%
Valorant 181 260−270
+43.6%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170 240−250
+41.2%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 111 150−160
+35.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 300−310
+35.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 103 140−150
+35.9%
Metro Exodus 58 80−85
+37.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 250−260
+42.9%
Valorant 258 350−400
+35.7%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 120−130
+41.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 37 50−55
+35.1%
Far Cry 5 101 140−150
+38.6%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90 120−130
+39.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 80−85
+42.9%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85 110−120
+35.8%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 24−27 35−40
+40%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 50−55
+42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 99 140−150
+41.4%
Metro Exodus 36 50−55
+38.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68 95−100
+39.7%
Valorant 257 350−400
+36.2%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 71 100−105
+40.8%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 50−55
+42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 17 24−27
+41.2%
Dota 2 160 230−240
+43.8%
Far Cry 5 53 75−80
+41.5%
Forza Horizon 4 73 100−105
+37%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 44 60−65
+36.4%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 60 85−90
+41.7%

This is how Titan X Pascal and Arc Pro B70 compete in popular games:

  • Arc Pro B70 is 37% faster in 1080p
  • Arc Pro B70 is 35% faster in 1440p
  • Arc Pro B70 is 38% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.27 45.06
Recency 2 August 2016 26 March 2026
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 230 Watt

Arc Pro B70 has a 44% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 69% more advanced lithography process, and 8% lower power consumption.

The Arc Pro B70 is our recommended choice as it beats the Titan X Pascal in performance tests.

Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop graphics card while Arc Pro B70 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.

Community ratings

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


2.6 3014 votes

Rate Titan X Pascal on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 19 votes

Rate Arc Pro B70 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Titan X Pascal or Arc Pro B70, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.