Radeon Pro 5600M vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Titan X Pascal with Radeon Pro 5600M, including specs and performance data.
Titan X Pascal outperforms Pro 5600M by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 163 | 243 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.96 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.29 | 32.92 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Navi 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 15 June 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3584 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1417 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 164.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.97 TFLOPS | 5.274 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 224 | 160 |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 770 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 394.2 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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API and SDK 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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| 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.
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 | 128
+42.2%
| 90−95
−42.2%
|
| 1440p | 76
+52%
| 50−55
−52%
|
| 4K | 59
+47.5%
| 40−45
−47.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 15.78 | no data |
| 4K | 20.32 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 173
+184%
|
60−65
−184%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 92
+114%
|
40−45
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+72.9%
|
45−50
−72.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 127
+108%
|
60−65
−108%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+70%
|
90−95
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 74
+72.1%
|
40−45
−72.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+54.2%
|
45−50
−54.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+116%
|
75−80
−116%
|
| Fortnite | 210
+85.8%
|
110−120
−85.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+41.1%
|
90−95
−41.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 124
+93.8%
|
60−65
−93.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+29.9%
|
85−90
−29.9%
|
| Valorant | 296
+87.3%
|
150−160
−87.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 78
+27.9%
|
60−65
−27.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+63.3%
|
90−95
−63.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+46.5%
|
40−45
−46.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+10.4%
|
250−260
−10.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+35.4%
|
45−50
−35.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 252
+114%
|
110−120
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+98.7%
|
75−80
−98.7%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+76.1%
|
110−120
−76.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+34.4%
|
90−95
−34.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 113
+76.6%
|
60−65
−76.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+92.8%
|
80−85
−92.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+95.9%
|
45−50
−95.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+29.9%
|
85−90
−29.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+179%
|
65−70
−179%
|
| Valorant | 275
+74.1%
|
150−160
−74.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+52.2%
|
90−95
−52.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+27.9%
|
40−45
−27.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+18.8%
|
45−50
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 232
+96.6%
|
110−120
−96.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+86.7%
|
75−80
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+24.4%
|
90−95
−24.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 97
+51.6%
|
60−65
−51.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+17.2%
|
85−90
−17.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+43.9%
|
65−70
−43.9%
|
| Valorant | 181
+14.6%
|
150−160
−14.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170
+50.4%
|
110−120
−50.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+36.3%
|
160−170
−36.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+158%
|
40−45
−158%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 258
+30.3%
|
190−200
−30.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+98%
|
50−55
−98%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+48.3%
|
55−60
−48.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 72
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+50.9%
|
50−55
−50.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+141%
|
40−45
−141%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+89.5%
|
18−20
−89.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Valorant | 257
+97.7%
|
130−140
−97.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+109%
|
30−35
−109%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+113%
|
75−80
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+91.3%
|
21−24
−91.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and Pro 5600M compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 42% faster in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal is 52% faster in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 48% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Titan X Pascal is 184% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5600M is 38% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is ahead in 64 tests (96%)
- Pro 5600M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.89 | 24.02 |
| Recency | 2 August 2016 | 15 June 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
Titan X Pascal has a 41.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro 5600M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 5600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 5600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
