FirePro W8000 vs Titan X Pascal

Place in the ranking	158	428
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.95	1.16
Power efficiency	9.33	3.31
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP102	Tahiti
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	2 August 2016 (8 years ago)	14 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Titan X Pascal has 499% better value for money than FirePro W8000.

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	1792
Core clock speed	1417 MHz	900 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	11,800 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	342.9	100.8
Floating-point processing power	10.97 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	32
TMUs	224	112

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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	279 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Form factor	no data	full height / full length
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	2x 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	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1251 MHz	1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	480.4 GB/s	176 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-
StereoOutput3D	-	+
DisplayPort count	no data	4
Dual-link DVI support	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

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 X Pascal 33.89
+213%

FirePro W8000 10.83

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
+213%

FirePro W8000 4163

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	126 +215%	40−45 −215%
1440p	75 +257%	21−24 −257%
4K	58 +222%	18−20 −222%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.52 +320%	39.98 −320%
1440p	15.99 +376%	76.14 −376%
4K	20.67 +330%	88.83 −330%

Titan X Pascal has 320% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Titan X Pascal has 376% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Titan X Pascal has 330% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	92 +241%	27−30 −241%
Cyberpunk 2077	79 +229%	24−27 −229%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +243%	21−24 −243%
Counter-Strike 2	74 +252%	21−24 −252%
Cyberpunk 2077	75 +257%	21−24 −257%
Forza Horizon 4	251 +214%	80−85 −214%
Forza Horizon 5	124 +254%	35−40 −254%
Metro Exodus	150 +233%	45−50 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	125 +257%	35−40 −257%
Valorant	212 +226%	65−70 −226%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	168 +236%	50−55 −236%
Counter-Strike 2	63 +250%	18−20 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	65 +261%	18−20 −261%
Dota 2	191 +218%	60−65 −218%
Far Cry 5	146 +224%	45−50 −224%
Fortnite	150−160 +244%	45−50 −244%
Forza Horizon 4	194 +223%	60−65 −223%
Forza Horizon 5	113 +223%	35−40 −223%
Grand Theft Auto V	160 +220%	50−55 −220%
Metro Exodus	106 +253%	30−33 −253%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	250 +233%	75−80 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	58 +222%	18−20 −222%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +231%	35−40 −231%
Valorant	117 +234%	35−40 −234%
World of Tanks	270−280 +227%	85−90 −227%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	64 +256%	18−20 −256%
Counter-Strike 2	55 +244%	16−18 −244%
Cyberpunk 2077	55 +244%	16−18 −244%
Dota 2	232 +231%	70−75 −231%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +237%	27−30 −237%
Forza Horizon 4	167 +234%	50−55 −234%
Forza Horizon 5	97 +223%	30−33 −223%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	146 +224%	45−50 −224%
Valorant	181 +229%	55−60 −229%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Dota 2	103 +243%	30−33 −243%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +243%	30−33 −243%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +218%	55−60 −218%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +270%	10−11 −270%
World of Tanks	210−220 +234%	65−70 −234%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +261%	18−20 −261%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +260%	10−11 −260%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +260%	30−33 −260%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +249%	35−40 −249%
Forza Horizon 5	72 +243%	21−24 −243%
Metro Exodus	101 +237%	30−33 −237%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +250%	16−18 −250%
Valorant	110 +214%	35−40 −214%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Dota 2	99 +230%	30−33 −230%
Grand Theft Auto V	99 +230%	30−33 −230%
Metro Exodus	36 +260%	10−11 −260%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	114 +226%	35−40 −226%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +243%	7−8 −243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	99 +230%	30−33 −230%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +231%	16−18 −231%
Counter-Strike 2	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Dota 2	160 +220%	50−55 −220%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +243%	14−16 −243%
Fortnite	67 +219%	21−24 −219%
Forza Horizon 4	70 +233%	21−24 −233%
Forza Horizon 5	45 +221%	14−16 −221%
Valorant	58 +222%	18−20 −222%

This is how Titan X Pascal and FirePro W8000 compete in popular games:

Titan X Pascal is 215% faster in 1080p
Titan X Pascal is 257% faster in 1440p
Titan X Pascal is 222% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.89	10.83
Recency	2 August 2016	14 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	225 Watt

Titan X Pascal has a 212.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

FirePro W8000, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.

The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W8000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop card while FirePro W8000 is a workstation one.

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