Or it could be a typo.
Even at 2.0GHz. TitanXP is only 15 TFLOPS vs the 20 TFLOPS of the Titan V. A 33% more performance in favor of the Titan V.
Some claim the tester was having difficulties with GPU under-utilization and throttling. The performance is there as evident by Gears 4 and Superposition numbers, it's just not manifested well in 3D Mark for some reason. We'll have to wait for a proper review and analysis from a credible site.
You can only take both from spec, then calculate clock and TFLOPs from that.
The Titan V has 21.5% more CUDA cores in the regard you are interested in, both boost clock possibly to same level although you need to note the Titan V is a monster die and will have much greater total power consumption/thermals.
So that is why like I mention some results will not be that impressive and as some have mentioned they fit that scaling, but other test may utilise the newer arch and will have a much greater benefit when around similar clocks.
You got a link showing a 20 TFLOPs FP32 figure with the PCIE version of the V100 either Titan or HPC card - I am not yet confident I would fully accept some of what is seen on Reddit and reported by some tools such as EVGA Precision without further validation.
I still cannot see how it can sustain 2GHz with such a die and that cooler, we really need to see the accurate power consumption figures as well for such a GPU die.
They rate Titan V the same as most other top Geforce cards at 250W, but the top NVLink V100 is 300W - yeah some of that will be the NVLink but also due to its higher clocks.
Thanks
Edit:
I mean looking at the WhyCry results just now sort of fit with what I am saying from both the CUDA core increase and possibly the detriment in certain cases for the SM doubling, while other tests may be a fair bit more due to benefiting from other aspects of the newer arch.