AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the primary benchmark score difference between the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and the NVIDIA CMP 50HX?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX scores 56,135. That is a 22.1% lead for the AMD card.

Q: Which card holds a higher position in the overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 sits at the 90th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile. The MI25 is ranked higher overall.

Q: How does the NVIDIA CMP 50HX compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The CMP 50HX has an average benchmark score of 51,790. It leads the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50,951) by 1.6%, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001) by 3.6%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957) by 3.7%, and the Intel Arc A550M (49,737) by 4.1%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The AMD card uses 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card uses 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do either of these cards support real-time ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX includes 56 ray tracing cores and 448 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput based on the available data. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, by a substantial 22.1% margin. The MI25 also holds a higher percentile rank (90th vs. 86th), meaning it sits above more of the GPU population in the database. This makes the AMD card the better choice for OpenCL-centric workloads, which often include general-purpose compute tasks, scientific simulations, and certain rendering pipelines that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, has its own strengths. It features dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD card. This suggests the CMP 50HX is better suited for workloads that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features, including ray-traced effects, and for AI inference tasks that utilize tensor cores. The NVIDIA card also has a higher pixel rate (123.6 GPixel/s vs. 96.00 GPixel/s) and higher memory bandwidth (560.0 GB/s vs. 436.2 GB/s), which could benefit memory-intensive operations or tasks with high resolution output requirements.

In terms of the benchmark database's nearest rival comparisons, the two cards occupy different competitive neighborhoods. The MI25's nearest rivals are all within 2% of its score: the Intel Arc A770 (0.4% slower), NVIDIA CMP 90HX (0.6% slower), AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (1.9% slower), and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (2% slower). This indicates the MI25 is tightly clustered with other high-end compute-focused accelerators. The CMP 50HX, on the other hand, leads its nearest rivals by 1.6% to 4.1%, showing it has a more decisive advantage over its immediate competition in the database, even if its absolute score is lower.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is significant. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, which is a 14 nm design fabricated by GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors onto a 495 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The GCN 5.0 architecture is a compute-oriented design with 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It does not include any dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, reflecting its focus on general-purpose compute rather than specialized acceleration.

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip based on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This die is larger at 754 mm² and contains 18,600 million transistors, yielding a slightly lower transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The Turing architecture introduces 56 ray tracing cores and 448 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the AMD card. The NVIDIA card has 3,584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. The inclusion of dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware makes the CMP 50HX architecturally more specialized for modern graphics effects and AI workloads, while the MI25 relies on raw shading unit count and GCN's compute strengths.

The memory subsystems also reflect different design philosophies. The MI25 uses HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus, which is a wide, high-bandwidth, low-latency design typical of data center accelerators. The CMP 50HX uses GDDR6 memory on a narrower 320-bit bus, but achieves higher raw bandwidth (560.0 GB/s vs. 436.2 GB/s) due to faster memory clocks. The MI25's 16 GB capacity is larger than the CMP 50HX's 10 GB, which may matter for datasets that exceed 10 GB.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX has a base clock of 1350 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. The NVIDIA card boosts slightly higher, but the AMD card has a higher base clock.

Memory specifications diverge sharply. The MI25 offers 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus at 436.2 GB/s, while the CMP 50HX offers 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus at 560.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX has the bandwidth advantage, but the MI25 has the capacity advantage.

Compute unit counts differ as well. The MI25 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The AMD card has more shading units and TMUs, while the NVIDIA card has more ROPs. In raw throughput, the MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the CMP 50HX delivers 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.15 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The MI25 is ahead in compute throughput.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The MI25 has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W, while the CMP 50HX has a TDP of 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. Both are dual-slot cards with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The MI25 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the CMP 50HX measures 267 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The CMP 50HX is slightly taller and has a listed width, while the MI25 does not.

The bus interface differs notably: the MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. This is a significant limitation for the NVIDIA card in terms of host communication bandwidth. API support also differs: the MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the CMP 50HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a more modern API feature set.

Release dates also differ: the MI25 was released on 2017-06-26, while the CMP 50HX was released on 2021-06-23. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 wins decisively. The MI25 scores 68,562, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX scores 56,135. This is a 22.1% advantage for the AMD card, a substantial margin in any compute comparison. The MI25's score also places it at the 90th percentile overall, while the CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile.

The MI25's OpenCL score of 68,562 puts it in close competition with several other high-end cards. It trails the Intel Arc A770 (68,809) by just 0.4%, the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) by 0.6%, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870) by 1.9%, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) by 2%. This shows the MI25 is performing at the same level as these accelerators, with only tiny percentage differences separating them. The CMP 50HX, by contrast, leads its nearest rivals by a wider margin: it is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, 3.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, 3.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, and 4.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A550M.

In the direct comparison, the MI25 wins the OpenCL test outright. The CMP 50HX does have a Vulkan benchmark score of 47,445, but there is no corresponding Vulkan score for the MI25 in the database, so no direct Vulkan comparison can be made. The CMP 50HX's average benchmark score across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) is 51,790, which is lower than the MI25's single OpenCL average of 68,562.

The data shows a clear compute hierarchy. The MI25 is the stronger OpenCL performer, with a lead that is both absolute and relative. The CMP 50HX, while competitive with its own peer group, does not match the MI25 in raw OpenCL throughput. The MI25's higher shading unit count (4,096 vs. 3,584), higher FP32 throughput (12.29 TFLOPS vs. 11.07 TFLOPS), and higher texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s vs. 296.6 GTexel/s) all contribute to its benchmark victory. The CMP 50HX counters with higher pixel rate (123.6 GPixel/s vs. 96.00 GPixel/s), higher memory bandwidth, and the presence of ray tracing and tensor cores, but none of these advantages translate into a win in the recorded OpenCL test.