AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a tightly contested pairing between the NVIDIA CMP 30HX and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, with each card claiming one decisive victory in the available benchmark suite. The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX posts an average of 63842, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 comes in at 63693, a difference of only 0.2%. This places both cards in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are closely matched in overall compute capability despite their vastly different architectures and market positioning.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX takes the win with a score of 65199 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56’s 61930. That is a 5.3% advantage for the Turing-based card. This result is notable because the AMD card features substantially more raw hardware resources on paper — 3584 shading units versus 1408, and 224 texture mapping units versus 88 — yet the NVIDIA card still manages to outperform it in this particular API workload. The CMP 30HX also benefits from a higher boost clock of 1785 MHz compared to the Pro Vega 56’s 1250 MHz, which helps close the theoretical throughput gap. The 5.3% delta in OpenCL suggests that the NVIDIA architecture is more efficient at extracting performance from its smaller silicon footprint.

The tables turn in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 delivers a score of 66004 against the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 62484. This is again a 5.3% swing, but this time in favor of the AMD card. The Pro Vega 56’s advantage in Vulkan likely stems from its larger memory subsystem: 8 GB of HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus provides 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the CMP 30HX’s 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivering 336.0 GB/s. In Vulkan workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, the AMD card’s 66.4 GB/s bandwidth advantage appears to be a deciding factor. The Pro Vega 56 also has a higher pixel rate of 80.00 GPixel/s versus the CMP 30HX’s 85.68 GPixel/s, though the NVIDIA card wins that specific metric.

The head-to-head benchmark results show a perfect split: one win each, with identical 5.3% margins in opposite directions. This suggests that the choice between these two cards depends heavily on the specific API and workload characteristics. The average benchmark scores reinforce this parity, with the CMP 30HX at 63842 and the Pro Vega 56 at 63693, separated by just 149 points — a margin that falls within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The nearest rival data also confirms this: both cards are bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63830) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63775), with the CMP 30HX sitting just 0.1% above the RX 7600M and the Pro Vega 56 sitting 0.1% below it.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the clear winner in OpenCL-based workloads. Its 5.3% lead over the Pro Vega 56 in Geekbench OpenCL (65199 vs 61930) indicates that developers and users relying on OpenCL for compute tasks — such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, or certain scientific applications — will see better performance from the Turing card. The CMP 30HX achieves this despite having fewer than half the shading units of its AMD rival, which points to superior per-core efficiency. Additionally, the NVIDIA card’s higher boost clock (1785 MHz vs 1250 MHz) and its 12 nm TSMC process node, while older lithography, still delivers a higher transistor density of 23.2M per mm² compared to the AMD card’s 25.3M per mm² on 14 nm GlobalFoundries. The CMP 30HX also supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer API revision than the Pro Vega 56’s Vulkan 1.3 support.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 takes the crown in Vulkan-based applications. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 66004 versus the CMP 30HX’s 62484 gives it a 5.3% edge. This makes the Pro Vega 56 the better choice for Vulkan-centric workloads, including modern game engines that leverage Vulkan for cross-platform rendering, as well as Vulkan-based compute shaders. The AMD card’s memory architecture is the likely differentiator: 8 GB of HBM2 with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 6 GB of GDDR6 with 336.0 GB/s. For workloads that require frequent memory access or large working sets, the Pro Vega 56’s 2048-bit bus provides a substantial throughput advantage. The card also offers more raw compute throughput on paper, with 8.960 TFLOPS FP32 versus the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS, though the benchmark results show that this theoretical advantage only materializes in Vulkan, not in OpenCL.

Beyond raw benchmark scores, the two cards serve different practical use cases. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is explicitly a mining GPU, with no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, meaning it cannot function as a display adapter. Its 125 W TDP and single 8-pin power connector make it a lower-power option for compute farms. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, by contrast, is a professional workstation card with full display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and an IGP slot width with no power connectors — it is designed to be integrated into systems like the Radeon Pro Mac. This makes the Pro Vega 56 the only viable choice for any workload that requires video output or system integration without discrete power cabling.

# The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, neither card holds a decisive overall advantage. The average benchmark scores are separated by just 0.2%, and the head-to-head results are a 1-1 split with symmetric 5.3% margins. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX should be the pick for users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance and operate in environments where its 125 W power draw and single 8-pin connector are beneficial. Its higher boost clock and newer Vulkan API support (1.4 vs 1.3) also make it a more future-proof option for API compatibility, even if it loses in current Vulkan benchmarks.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the choice for users who need Vulkan performance and require display outputs. Its 5.3% Vulkan lead, combined with 8 GB of HBM2 memory and a 2048-bit bus, makes it better suited for graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan’s modern rendering paths. The card’s IGP form factor and lack of power connectors mean it can be deployed in systems without dedicated GPU power wiring, which is a unique advantage in the Radeon Pro Mac ecosystem. However, its 210 W TDP is significantly higher than the CMP 30HX’s 125 W, so power-conscious deployments may favor the NVIDIA card despite its lower memory capacity.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. For OpenCL compute with minimal power overhead, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the superior choice. For Vulkan rendering and display-capable professional workloads, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the better fit. The 89th percentile ranking for both cards confirms that they are both high-performing options relative to the entire GPU market, but their strengths are clearly divided along API lines rather than overall capability.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 63842, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56’s 63693, a difference of 0.2%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX wins in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 65199, beating the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56’s 61930 by 5.3%.

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 outperforms the NVIDIA CMP 30HX in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 66004 versus 62484, a 5.3% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do these cards support display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for video output. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has a 125 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP.

# Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their divergent benchmark results. The CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip based on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The Pro Vega 56, by contrast, uses the Vega 10 chip based on AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The AMD chip is nearly twice the physical size and carries almost double the transistor count, yet the NVIDIA card manages to match its overall performance in the available benchmarks.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Pro Vega 56 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite having 2.5 times the shading units, the AMD card only achieves a 1.78 times higher FP32 throughput (8.960 TFLOPS vs 5.027 TFLOPS), and its FP16 performance of 17.92 TFLOPS versus the CMP 30HX’s 10.05 TFLOPS shows a similar 1.78x ratio. The pixel rates are close (85.68 GPixel/s for NVIDIA vs 80.00 GPixel/s for AMD), but the texture rate heavily favors AMD at 280.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both lack RTX and Tensor core hardware.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus, yielding 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The HBM2 memory operates at a much lower clock speed (786 MHz, 1572 Mbps effective) compared to the GDDR6 (1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective), but the vastly wider bus gives the AMD card a 19.8% bandwidth advantage. The CMP 30HX has a base clock of 1530 MHz and boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the Pro Vega 56 runs at 1138 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost — the NVIDIA card’s clocks are significantly higher, which helps compensate for its fewer compute units.

The cards also differ in their bus interfaces and power delivery. The CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an unusual choice for a modern GPU and severely limits host-to-device data transfer rates, but this is acceptable for mining workloads where data is loaded once and processed repeatedly. The Pro Vega 56 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, providing much higher bandwidth for general computing. Power delivery also diverges: the CMP 30HX requires a single 8-pin connector and has a 125 W TDP with a suggested 300 W PSU, while the Pro Vega 56 has no power connectors at all, drawing power through its IGP slot, and has a 210 W TDP. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with dimensions of 229 mm length, 111 mm height, and 35 mm width, while the Pro Vega 56’s dimensions are not specified in the data. Finally, the API support differs slightly, with the CMP 30HX supporting Vulkan 1.4 versus the Pro Vega 56’s Vulkan 1.3, while both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.