FirePro S7150 vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Titan X Pascal with FirePro S7150, including specs and performance data.
Titan X Pascal outperforms S7150 by a whopping 245% 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 | 526 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.07 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 9.59 | 4.63 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Tonga |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 February 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $2,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Titan X Pascal has 2328% better value for money than FirePro S7150.
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 | 920 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 117.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.97 TFLOPS | 3.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 512 KB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
| 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 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| 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
+254%
| 35−40
−254%
|
| 1440p | 74
+252%
| 21−24
−252%
|
| 4K | 58
+263%
| 16−18
−263%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.67
+609%
| 68.54
−609%
|
| 1440p | 16.20
+605%
| 114.24
−605%
|
| 4K | 20.67
+625%
| 149.94
−625%
|
- Titan X Pascal has 609% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal has 605% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal has 625% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+255%
|
95−100
−255%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+246%
|
24−27
−246%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 126
+260%
|
35−40
−260%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+283%
|
40−45
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 291
+264%
|
80−85
−264%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+252%
|
21−24
−252%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+260%
|
45−50
−260%
|
| Fortnite | 210
+250%
|
60−65
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+263%
|
35−40
−263%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 119
+297%
|
30−33
−297%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+277%
|
30−33
−277%
|
| Valorant | 296
+248%
|
85−90
−248%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+268%
|
40−45
−268%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 205
+273%
|
55−60
−273%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+246%
|
80−85
−246%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
| Dota 2 | 252
+260%
|
70−75
−260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+273%
|
40−45
−273%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+262%
|
55−60
−262%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+246%
|
35−40
−246%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+253%
|
30−33
−253%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+256%
|
45−50
−256%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+256%
|
27−30
−256%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+277%
|
30−33
−277%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+268%
|
50−55
−268%
|
| Valorant | 275
+267%
|
75−80
−267%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+291%
|
35−40
−291%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Dota 2 | 232
+257%
|
65−70
−257%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+250%
|
40−45
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+273%
|
30−33
−273%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+278%
|
27−30
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+252%
|
27−30
−252%
|
| Valorant | 181
+262%
|
50−55
−262%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170
+278%
|
45−50
−278%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+270%
|
30−33
−270%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+270%
|
60−65
−270%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+281%
|
27−30
−281%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+263%
|
16−18
−263%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+250%
|
50−55
−250%
|
| Valorant | 258
+269%
|
70−75
−269%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+274%
|
27−30
−274%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+254%
|
24−27
−254%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+281%
|
21−24
−281%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+267%
|
27−30
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+278%
|
18−20
−278%
|
| Valorant | 257
+267%
|
70−75
−267%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+256%
|
45−50
−256%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+279%
|
14−16
−279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+248%
|
21−24
−248%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60
+275%
|
16−18
−275%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and FirePro S7150 compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 254% faster in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal is 252% faster in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 263% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.15 | 9.02 |
| Recency | 2 August 2016 | 1 February 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
Titan X Pascal has a 245.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro S7150, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S7150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop graphics card while FirePro S7150 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.
