Radeon RX Vega 56 vs GeForce GTX TITAN X

Place in the ranking	160	153
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.13	23.78
Power efficiency	9.28	11.24
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GM200	Vega 10
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	17 March 2015 (9 years ago)	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$999	$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 56 has 192% better value for money than GTX TITAN X.

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	3072	3584
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	1156 MHz
Boost clock speed	1075 MHz	1471 MHz
Number of transistors	8,000 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	210 Watt
Texture fill rate	209.1	329.5
Floating-point processing power	6.691 TFLOPS	10.54 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	64
TMUs	192	224

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	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	600 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	2x 8-pin
SLI options	4x	-

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	GDDR5	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.5 GB/s	409.6 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-

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	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.1.125
CUDA	5.2	-

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.

GTX TITAN X 33.69

RX Vega 56 34.28
+1.8%

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.

GTX TITAN X 12950

RX Vega 56 13178
+1.8%

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	110−120 −4.5%	115 +4.5%
1440p	70−75 −5.7%	74 +5.7%
4K	45−50 −6.7%	48 +6.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.08 −162%	3.47 +162%
1440p	14.27 −165%	5.39 +165%
4K	22.20 −167%	8.31 +167%

RX Vega 56 has 162% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX Vega 56 has 165% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX Vega 56 has 167% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Elden Ring	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	88 +0%	88 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Metro Exodus	96 +0%	96 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	156 +0%	156 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Dota 2	63 +0%	63 +0%
Elden Ring	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Fortnite	140 +0%	140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	94 +0%	94 +0%
Metro Exodus	73 +0%	73 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80 +0%	80 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Dota 2	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	112 +0%	112 +0%
Valorant	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Elden Ring	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
World of Tanks	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	67 +0%	67 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Metro Exodus	74 +0%	74 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	50 +0%	50 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	50 +0%	50 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50 +0%	50 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35 +0%	35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Fortnite	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

This is how GTX TITAN X and RX Vega 56 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 56 is 5% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 56 is 6% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 56 is 7% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.69	34.28
Recency	17 March 2015	14 August 2017
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	210 Watt

GTX TITAN X has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX Vega 56, on the other hand, has a 1.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 19% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX TITAN X and Radeon RX Vega 56.

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