NVIDIA Titan X Pascal vs AMD Radeon R9 290

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Titan X Pascal and AMD Radeon R9 290 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Titan X Pascal

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• Around 50% higher core clock speed: 1417 MHz vs 947 MHz
• 2.3x more texture fill rate: 342.9 GTexel / s vs 151.5 GTexel / s
• Around 40% higher pipelines: 3584 vs 2560
• 2.3x better floating-point performance: 10,974 gflops vs 4,849 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 250 Watt vs 275 Watt
• 3x more maximum memory size: 12 GB vs 4 GB
• 2x more memory clock speed: 10008 MHz vs 5000 MHz
• Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 165.792 vs 89.325
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2368.267 vs 1366.314
• Around 78% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 17.829 vs 10.034
• Around 84% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 992.132 vs 540.645
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10841 vs 6300
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10841 vs 6300
• 2.6x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 9559 vs 3685

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290

• Around 61% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 vs 63437
• 4.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.765 vs 21.354
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3354 vs 3333
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3354 vs 3333

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290

Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	63437 102277
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	165.792 89.325
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2368.267 1366.314
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	17.829 10.034
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	21.354 98.765
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	992.132 540.645
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10841 6300
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3696 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3354
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10841 6300
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3696 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3333 3354
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	9559 3685

Compare specifications (specs)