Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs Titan X Pascal

Place in the ranking	156	132
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.91	6.85
Power efficiency	9.33	5.28
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP102	Vega 20
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	2 August 2016 (8 years ago)	3 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$4,399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Titan X Pascal has 1% better value for money than Pro Vega II Duo.

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	4096
Core clock speed	1417 MHz	1400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	1720 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	475 Watt
Texture fill rate	342.9	440.3
Floating-point processing power	10.97 TFLOPS	14.09 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	64
TMUs	224	256

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	GDDR5X	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	1251 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	480.4 GB/s	1.02 TB/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	1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt
HDMI	+	+
G-SYNC support	+	-

API compatibility

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	+	-

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 33.80

Pro Vega II Duo 36.37
+7.6%

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

Pro Vega II Duo 14018
+7.6%

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 −3.2%	130−140 +3.2%
1440p	72 −4.2%	75−80 +4.2%
4K	56 −7.1%	60−65 +7.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.52	33.84
1440p	16.65	58.65
4K	21.41	73.32

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

−7.6%

85−90
+7.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	104 −5.8%	110−120 +5.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	95 −5.3%	100−105 +5.3%
Battlefield 5	174 −3.4%	180−190 +3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	108 −1.9%	110−120 +1.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 −2.6%	80−85 +2.6%
Far Cry 5	121 −7.4%	130−140 +7.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	138 −1.4%	140−150 +1.4%
Forza Horizon 4	240 −4.2%	250−260 +4.2%
Hitman 3	104 −5.8%	110−120 +5.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	296 −1.4%	300−310 +1.4%
Metro Exodus	143 −4.9%	150−160 +4.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	125 −4%	130−140 +4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	161 −5.6%	170−180 +5.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	226 −6.2%	240−250 +6.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	121 −7.4%	130−140 +7.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	85 −5.9%	90−95 +5.9%
Battlefield 5	165 −3%	170−180 +3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	98 −2%	100−105 +2%
Cyberpunk 2077	69 −1.4%	70−75 +1.4%
Far Cry 5	92 −3.3%	95−100 +3.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	108 −1.9%	110−120 +1.9%
Forza Horizon 4	225 −6.7%	240−250 +6.7%
Hitman 3	104 −5.8%	110−120 +5.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	275 −5.5%	290−300 +5.5%
Metro Exodus	143 −4.9%	150−160 +4.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	102 +2%	100−105 −2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	194 −3.1%	200−210 +3.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	96 −4.2%	100−105 +4.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	216 −6.5%	230−240 +6.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	67 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	63 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	75 −6.7%	80−85 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Far Cry 5	67 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Forza Horizon 4	112 −7.1%	120−130 +7.1%
Hitman 3	93 −7.5%	100−105 +7.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150 −6.7%	160−170 +6.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	167 −1.8%	170−180 +1.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95 −5.3%	100−105 +5.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	64 −1.6%	65−70 +1.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

118

−1.7%

120−130
+1.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −1.6%	65−70 +1.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	51 +2%	50−55 −2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	58 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 −3.6%	200−210 +3.6%
Hitman 3	66 −6.1%	70−75 +6.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 −1.7%	120−130 +1.7%
Metro Exodus	101 +1%	100−105 −1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	122 −6.6%	130−140 +6.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +2.2%	45−50 −2.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	212 −3.8%	220−230 +3.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−3.3%

95−100
+3.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	63 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	48 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%
Hitman 3	39 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 −0.8%	130−140 +0.8%
Metro Exodus	67 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	68 −2.9%	70−75 +2.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	38 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	32 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	33 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
Forza Horizon 4	73 −2.7%	75−80 +2.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70 −7.1%	75−80 +7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	26 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−6.4%

50−55
+6.4%

This is how Titan X Pascal and Pro Vega II Duo compete in popular games:

Pro Vega II Duo is 3% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega II Duo is 4% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega II Duo is 7% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.80	36.37
Recency	2 August 2016	3 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	475 Watt

Titan X Pascal has 90% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega II Duo, on the other hand, has a 7.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Titan X Pascal and Radeon Pro Vega II Duo.

Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is a workstation one.

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