AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 and NVIDIA CMP 50HX are two end-of-life GPUs aimed at entirely different workloads, yet their benchmark profiles reveal a closer contest than their architectures suggest. The AMD card, built on 14 nm GCN 5.0, targets professional Apple-centric workflows, while the NVIDIA part leverages 12 nm Turing silicon for compute-heavy tasks without display outputs. Averaging all available benchmarks, the Radeon Pro Vega 48 holds a 60140 average score versus the CMP 50HX’s 51790, a 16.1% overall advantage. However, the head-to-head data splits one win each: NVIDIA leads OpenCL by 4.2%, while AMD dominates Vulkan by 21.5%. The Radeon also sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, two points higher than the CMP 50HX’s 86th. For buyers today, the choice hinges on API preference and platform compatibility rather than raw compute dominance.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 if your workload prioritizes Vulkan performance or you need a GPU that works in portable devices. Its Vulkan score of 57653 crushes the CMP 50HX’s 47445, a 21.5% gap that makes it the clear choice for Vulkan-based rendering or compute stacks. The Vega 48 also delivers better overall average performance (60140 vs 51790, roughly 16% higher) and boasts a higher percentile rank (88th vs 86th). Additionally, it supports display outputs (portable device dependent) and requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems where the CMP 50HX’s dual-slot, 2x 8-pin, 250 W design would be impractical.

Choose the NVIDIA CMP 50HX if OpenCL performance is your primary metric. It scores 56135 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Vega 48’s 53757, a 4.2% edge. The CMP 50HX also offers more memory bandwidth (560.0 GB/s vs 402.4 GB/s) and a larger frame buffer (10 GB vs 8 GB), which can benefit memory-bound compute tasks despite its lower overall average. Its 3584 shading units, 448 tensor cores, and 56 RT cores provide hardware features the Vega 48 lacks entirely. However, the CMP 50HX has no display outputs and uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which limits its utility outside dedicated mining or compute rigs. For mixed workloads, the Vega 48’s superior average score and broader API support (Vulkan 1.3 vs 1.4, though both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6) make it the safer recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60140 across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX averages 51790. That puts the AMD card roughly 16% ahead in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 57653 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 21.5% higher than the CMP 50HX’s 47445. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX have any advantages in compute workloads?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL the CMP 50HX scores 56135 versus 53757 for the Vega 48, a 4.2% lead. It also provides 560.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 10 GB of GDDR6, compared to 402.4 GB/s and 8 GB of HBM2 on the AMD side.

Q: What architectural features does the CMP 50HX have that the Vega 48 lacks?

A: The CMP 50HX includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, which are absent from the Vega 48. The NVIDIA card also has more shading units (3584 vs 3072) and a higher transistor count (18,600 million vs 12,500 million).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked end-of-life. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 was released on 2019-03-18, and the NVIDIA CMP 50HX followed on 2021-06-23.

Q: Which card is better for systems without discrete power connectors?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 48, as it uses no power connectors and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for slot width. The CMP 50HX requires 2x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD’s Vega 10 chip uses the GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die. NVIDIA’s TU102 uses the Turing architecture on TSMC’s 12 nm node, with 18,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 754 mm² die. Despite the higher transistor count, the CMP 50HX’s transistor density (24.7M / mm²) is actually slightly lower than the Vega 48’s (25.3M / mm²), reflecting the older process and larger chip.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 50HX uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, achieving 560.0 GB/s. The HBM2 implementation gives AMD a wider bus but less total capacity and lower bandwidth. The Vega 48’s memory clock is 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), while the CMP 50HX runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ in scale and type. AMD’s GPU has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA counters with 3584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. Critically, the CMP 50HX adds 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference—features entirely absent from the Vega 48. The pixel rate tells the story: 123.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 76.80 GPixel/s for AMD, a 60% advantage. Texture rate favors NVIDIA too, at 296.6 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the CMP 50HX reaches 11.07 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS for the Vega 48, a 50% lead. FP16 performance scales similarly: 22.15 TFLOPS versus 14.75 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 | NVIDIA CMP 50HX |

|---|---|---|

| Process node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 18,600 million |

| Die size | 495 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Base clock | Not listed | 1350 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 1545 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB HBM2 | 10 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 2048 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 560.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3072 | 3584 |

| ROPs | 64 | 80 |

| RT cores | None | 56 |

| Tensor cores | None | 448 |

| FP32 | 7.373 TFLOPS | 11.07 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 14.75 TFLOPS | 22.15 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 250 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | Portable device dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 116 mm x 35 mm |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite consists of two Geekbench tests, and each GPU takes one victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX scores 56135 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48’s 53757. That 4.2% lead reflects the CMP 50HX’s higher shading unit count (3584 vs 3072) and substantially greater memory bandwidth (560.0 GB/s vs 402.4 GB/s). OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, which explains NVIDIA’s edge. The deltaPct of -4.2% is reported from AMD’s perspective, meaning AMD trails by that margin.

The Vulkan test flips the result dramatically. AMD’s Vega 48 scores 57653, while the CMP 50HX manages only 47445. That is a 21.5% advantage for AMD, the largest margin in any comparison. Interestingly, Vulkan performance does not correlate with the CMP 50HX’s theoretical compute advantages—it has 50% more FP32 throughput and 39% more bandwidth—yet the Turing architecture underperforms in this API. The Vega 48’s GCN design appears better optimized for Vulkan’s explicit control model, or the CMP 50HX’s mining-oriented firmware and lack of display outputs may hinder driver paths. Either way, the data is unambiguous: for Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD card is the superior choice.

When averaging all benchmarks, the Vega 48’s 60140 mean score beats the CMP 50HX’s 51790 by roughly 16%. That aggregate advantage stems almost entirely from the Vulkan blowout, as the OpenCL deficit is minor. The percentile ranks reinforce this: AMD sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, NVIDIA at the 86th. Nearest rival comparisons show the Vega 48 trading blows with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (-0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (-0.3%), and AMD Radeon PRO V710 (+2.5%). The CMP 50HX, meanwhile, leads the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 1.6%, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 by 3.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti by 3.7%. These figures place both cards in similar performance tiers, despite their architectural chasm. The Vega 48’s higher average and percentile, coupled with its Vulkan dominance, make it the stronger all-rounder; the CMP 50HX is the niche pick for OpenCL-centric compute where its bandwidth and tensor cores can shine.