AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 in the two benchmark tests where both GPUs were measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 61930 against the NVIDIA CMP 50HX’s 56135, a delta of 10.3% in favor of AMD. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a solid, consistent lead across a compute-heavy workload that stresses raw parallel throughput.

The Vulkan results are far more lopsided. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 reaches 66004 points, while the CMP 50HX trails at 47445. That is a 39.1% difference, nearly four times the OpenCL margin. Vulkan tends to expose driver efficiency and architecture-level scheduling behavior, and here the older GCN design outperforms the Turing-based mining card by a wide margin. The CMP 50HX’s lack of display outputs and its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which is unusual for a modern GPU, likely hamper its ability to fully express its compute potential in API-level tests that rely on host-device communication.

Out of the two head-to-head benchmarks, AMD wins both. The NVIDIA card records zero wins in this comparison. While the CMP 50HX has higher raw specifications in several areas, such as pixel rate and texture rate, the actual measured application-level performance does not translate into a win in either test. The data suggests that the CMP 50HX was optimized for a different workload profile, one that does not align with the Geekbench suite’s synthetic compute patterns.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M per mm². The NVIDIA CMP 50HX, by contrast, uses the TU102 chip with Turing architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It houses 18,600 million transistors on a much larger 754 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 24.7M per mm².

Memory configurations diverge sharply. AMD pairs its 8 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, achieving 560.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has a clear bandwidth advantage, but the HBM2 on the AMD side offers lower latency characteristics that may benefit certain compute patterns. Clock speeds also differ: the AMD base clock is 1138 MHz with a boost of 1250 MHz, while the NVIDIA base is 1350 MHz and boost reaches 1545 MHz.

Shader counts are identical at 3584 shading units, but the rest of the pipeline differs. AMD has 224 texture mapping units and 64 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 192 TMUs and 80 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a higher pixel rate (123.6 GPixel/s vs 80.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (296.6 GTexel/s vs 280.0 GTexel/s). However, AMD counters with higher FP32 throughput per clock relative to its lower clocks? No, that is not the case. The NVIDIA card actually leads in FP32 at 11.07 TFLOPS versus AMD’s 8.960 TFLOPS, and in FP16 at 22.15 TFLOPS versus 17.92 TFLOPS.

The Turing architecture brings dedicated hardware that GCN lacks. The CMP 50HX includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, features designed for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 has neither. This is a generational difference, as Turing introduced these specialized units while GCN 5.0 predates them. The API support also reflects this: NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3.

Physical design and power delivery are almost opposite. The AMD card is an IGP with no power connectors and a 210 W TDP. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design, 267 mm long, requiring two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU, with a 250 W TDP. The AMD card has display outputs (HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a), while the NVIDIA card has none, confirming its purpose as a mining-focused product. The bus interface also differs starkly: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, NVIDIA uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which severely limits data transfer to and from the host.

Where Each One Wins

From the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 wins in both measured tests, but the picture is more nuanced when considering the full specification profile. In OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, AMD leads by 10.3% and 39.1% respectively. This suggests the Radeon Pro Vega 56 is better suited for general-purpose compute tasks, scientific simulations, and any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. Its higher average benchmark score of 63693 versus 51790 for the CMP 50HX reinforces this dominance in database-recorded tests.

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has advantages in raw throughput metrics. Its 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.15 TFLOPS FP16 are higher than AMD’s 8.960 and 17.92 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 123.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 296.6 GTexel/s also exceed AMD’s figures. These numbers point toward rasterization-heavy workloads, though the lack of display outputs makes that application moot in practice. The 10 GB memory capacity and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth could benefit workloads that are memory-capacity bound, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or large dataset processing, but the PCIe 1.0 x4 interface would bottleneck data ingestion.

The RT cores and tensor cores on the CMP 50HX are unique advantages for ray tracing and AI acceleration, but neither benchmark test in the database measures those capabilities. The absence of such tests means the recorded data cannot confirm whether these features translate into real-world wins. The AMD card’s HBM2 memory, while lower in bandwidth, provides a 2048-bit bus width that may offer better random access patterns for irregular compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 as the superior choice for the benchmark suite recorded in the database. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average score, and ranks at the 89th percentile versus the CMP 50HX’s 86th percentile. The 39.1% lead in Vulkan is particularly telling, as it suggests architectural efficiency that the NVIDIA mining card cannot match in API-level performance.

However, the CMP 50HX should not be dismissed entirely. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, larger memory pool, and dedicated RT and tensor cores make it a more capable part on paper for specific workloads that are not represented in the head-to-head tests. The missing display outputs and PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, though, severely limit its utility outside of mining or headless compute farms. For any user seeking a general-purpose GPU that can handle compute benchmarks, the Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the clear winner.

The AMD card also offers practical advantages: no external power connectors, lower TDP at 210 W versus 250 W, and full display output support. The NVIDIA card requires a 600 W PSU and dual 8-pin connectors, making it a more demanding installation. The end-of-life status applies to both, so longevity is not a differentiator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 averages 63693 points, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX averages 51790 points, a difference of roughly 23%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the AMD card at 66004 versus the NVIDIA at 47445, a 39.1% margin in favor of AMD.

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

A: Yes, the CMP 50HX offers higher FP32 throughput at 11.07 TFLOPS and FP16 at 22.15 TFLOPS, along with 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores that the AMD card lacks.

Q: Why does the CMP 50HX have no display outputs?

A: The database lists the CMP 50HX as having no outputs, which aligns with its designation as a Mining GPUs generation product, designed for headless operation.

Q: How do memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD card uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 56 sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, while the CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 | NVIDIA CMP 50HX |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.3M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1138 MHz | 1350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz | 1545 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 10 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 560.0 GB/s |

| TMUs | 224 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 80 |

| RT Cores | None | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 448 |

| Pixel Rate | 80.00 GPixel/s | 123.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 280.0 GTexel/s | 296.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.960 TFLOPS | 11.07 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1) | 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 210 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | Not listed | 267 mm x 116 mm x 35 mm |