AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and NVIDIA CMP 30HX are both end-of-life, dual-slot accelerator cards with no display outputs, aimed at compute rather than gaming. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the AMD card taking a narrow victory, though the two cards occupy very different positions in terms of architecture, memory, and power requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are surprisingly close given the architectural gulf between the two cards. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 points, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX trails with 65,199 points. That works out to a 5.2% advantage for the AMD card — a meaningful but not overwhelming margin.

This slim lead is notable because the MI25 is a much larger chip on paper. Its raw compute figures are more than double those of the CMP 30HX: the MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus just 5.027 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. Yet in the OpenCL workload, that massive theoretical advantage compresses to a single-digit percentage gap. The data suggests the CMP 30HX is far more efficient at translating its silicon into real-world compute performance.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape reinforces this picture. The MI25's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770, which averages 68,809 points — just 0.4% ahead of the AMD card. The NVIDIA CMP 90HX sits at 69,000 points, a mere 0.6% edge over the MI25. In other words, the MI25 is bracketed by cards that barely outscore it, and it also trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 by 1.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 by 2%. The CMP 30HX, meanwhile, is locked in a dead heat with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, which scores 63,830 points (0% delta), and sits just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 points. It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 by 0.2% and trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by 0.6%.

One important caveat: the CMP 30HX has a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 62,484, which is lower than its OpenCL result. The MI25 has no Vulkan score in the data, so cross-API comparisons are impossible. The single OpenCL matchup stands as the only direct evidence, and it shows a 5.2% win for AMD.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is the faster card in absolute terms. Its 5.2% lead in OpenCL is real, and its 90th percentile ranking among all GPUs puts it one point above the CMP 30HX's 89th percentile. The MI25 also has a much higher average benchmark score of 68,562 versus 63,842 for the NVIDIA card.

However, the CMP 30HX makes a compelling case on efficiency grounds. It draws 125 W of power compared to the MI25's 300 W, and it requires only a single 8-pin power connector alongside a 300 W suggested PSU — versus the MI25's dual 8-pin connectors and 700 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card also runs on a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the MI25 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, which helps explain the efficiency gap.

Who should pick which? For raw compute throughput and memory capacity, the MI25 is the clear choice: it offers 16 GB of HBM2 memory versus 6 GB of GDDR6, with 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 336.0 GB/s. That 10 GB difference in memory size and 30% bandwidth advantage could matter for large datasets. But for anyone constrained by power delivery or thermal envelope, the CMP 30HX delivers 93% of the OpenCL performance at 42% of the power draw. The data supports the MI25 for compute-heavy workloads, and the CMP 30HX for efficiency-sensitive deployments.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The MI25 is built on AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture, using the Vega 10 chip, while the CMP 30HX uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture with the TU116 chip. Both are classified under the GCN and Turing families respectively, with the MI25 belonging to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation and the CMP 30HX to the Mining GPUs generation.

The process nodes differ: the MI25 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the CMP 30HX uses a 12 nm process from TSMC. This is reflected in the transistor counts — the MI25 packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, versus 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die for the CMP 30HX. The resulting transistor densities are similar: 25.3 million per mm² for the AMD card and 23.2 million per mm² for the NVIDIA card.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The MI25 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The CMP 30HX has just 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those fields are null for both. The pixel rates are close — 96.00 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 85.68 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card — but the texture rates are far apart: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s.

The FP16 performance follows the same pattern. The MI25 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the CMP 30HX manages 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ on Vulkan: the MI25 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the CMP 30HX supports Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The clock speeds also differ: the MI25 runs at 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, with memory at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective). The CMP 30HX runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card has higher clock speeds, but the AMD card's wider memory bus and larger pool more than compensate.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The MI25 carries a 300 W TDP, while the CMP 30HX is rated at just 125 W. This cascades into the power connector requirements: the MI25 needs two 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, while the CMP 30HX needs only one 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions also differ: the MI25 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), while the CMP 30HX is 229 mm long (9 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 35 mm wide (1.4 inches). The MI25 has no listed width.

The bus interface is another point of contrast. The MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4 — a significant limitation for data transfer. Release dates are far apart: the MI25 launched on June 26, 2017, while the CMP 30HX launched on February 24, 2021. The MI25's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the CMP 30HX has no predecessor. The CMP 30HX has a launch MSRP of 799 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.2% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 30HX's 65,199 points.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI25 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU and dual 8-pin connectors. The CMP 30HX has a 125 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Do either of these cards support display outputs?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX have "No outputs" listed for their display outputs.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The MI25 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The CMP 30HX has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die using a 12 nm process from TSMC.