AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and NVIDIA CMP 30HX are two very different products that happen to share an end-of-life status. The Pro Vega 64 is a professional-grade mobile GPU from 2017, built for compute and rendering in Apple’s Mac line, while the CMP 30HX is a 2021 mining-specific card with no display outputs. The benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, but the real story lies in what each card was designed to do and how its architecture shapes that purpose.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 71,094 against the CMP 30HX’s 65,199, a 9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens significantly: 74,174 versus 62,484, an 18.7% lead. That means the Pro Vega 64 is not just faster—it is decisively faster in API-level compute workloads, especially in Vulkan where its architecture appears to scale better.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no wins in this comparison. However, it does hold its own in specific contexts. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 65,199 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, according to its nearest rival data. This suggests that for pure compute tasks that favor OpenCL, the CMP 30HX is competitive with mid-range GPUs from around its era, even if it cannot match the Pro Vega 64.

The Pro Vega 64 also has a higher average benchmark score of 72,379, placing it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The CMP 30HX averages 63,842, which is the 89th percentile. So while both are above-average performers, the AMD card sits notably higher in the overall distribution. For anyone choosing between these two for general compute, the data points entirely toward AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with a die size of 495 mm² and 12,500 million transistors. That translates to a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². This is a large, power-hungry chip designed for maximum throughput, with 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. Its memory subsystem is equally ambitious: 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 786 MHz, which becomes 1,572 Mbps effective.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip, a Turing-generation part manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The die is much smaller at 284 mm², with 6,600 million transistors, giving a density of 23.2 million per mm². It has far fewer execution units—1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Memory is 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The CMP 30HX’s boost clock is 1785 MHz, which is higher than the Pro Vega 64’s 1350 MHz boost, but the AMD card’s massive parallelism more than compensates.

Feature-wise, the Pro Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the CMP 30HX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs at all, while the Pro Vega 64’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its integrated design. Power draw differs substantially: 250 W for the AMD part versus 125 W for the NVIDIA part, with the CMP 30HX requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, with 402.4 GB/s from its 16 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has 336.0 GB/s from 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA CMP 30HX support display output?

A: No. The CMP 30HX is listed as having “No outputs,” which makes it unsuitable for any use case requiring a monitor. The Pro Vega 64’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by the host system.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Pro Vega 64 leads with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 74,174 versus 62,484 for the CMP 30HX, an 18.7% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Pro Vega 64 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, while the CMP 30HX has 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The AMD chip is nearly twice as large in both metrics.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX boosts to 1785 MHz, compared to the Pro Vega 64’s 1350 MHz. Despite the higher clock, the CMP 30HX still trails in raw compute throughput.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes. The production status for both the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is listed as “End-of-life.”

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The Pro Vega 64 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the CMP 30HX uses a 12 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 12,500 million versus 6,600 million, and die sizes are 495 mm² versus 284 mm². Base clocks are 1250 MHz versus 1530 MHz, and boost clocks are 1350 MHz versus 1785 MHz. Memory sizes are 16 GB versus 6 GB, with types HBM2 versus GDDR6, bus widths 2048-bit versus 192-bit, and bandwidths 402.4 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s. Memory clocks are 786 MHz (1,572 Mbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ massively: 4,096 shading units versus 1,408, 256 TMUs versus 88, and 64 ROPs versus 48. Pixel rates are nearly identical—86.40 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s—but texture rates diverge: 345.6 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.06 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.12 TFLOPS versus 10.05 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio. TDP is 250 W versus 125 W. The CMP 30HX is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 229 mm by 111 mm by 35 mm, while the Pro Vega 64 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no listed dimensions or power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD and PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA. Vulkan support differs: 1.3 versus 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes two benchmarks, both won by the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro Vega 64 scores 71,094 against the CMP 30HX’s 65,199. That is a 9% delta, which is meaningful but not overwhelming. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, and both cards handle it competently, but the AMD card’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth give it a clear edge.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro Vega 64 scores 74,174 versus 62,484 for the CMP 30HX. The delta is 18.7%, more than double the OpenCL gap. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API, and the AMD architecture appears to benefit more from that efficiency. The Pro Vega 64’s score of 74,174 is also its best result across all three of its benchmarks, suggesting it excels in Vulkan workloads specifically. The CMP 30HX’s Vulkan score of 62,484 is its weakest, trailing its OpenCL result by about 4.2%.

Looking at rival comparisons adds context. The Pro Vega 64’s average score of 72,379 puts it 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370). That places it in the upper tier of its generation’s cards. The CMP 30HX’s average of 63,842 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830) and 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775). It sits 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212). So the CMP 30HX is competitive with mid-range cards from the same era, but it is not in the same league as the Pro Vega 64.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward if performance is the only criterion. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (72,379 versus 63,842), and sits in the 91st percentile of all GPUs versus the 89th for the CMP 30HX. Its 18.7% lead in Vulkan and 9% lead in OpenCL are substantial margins. For compute-heavy tasks in rendering, simulation, or machine learning, the Pro Vega 64 is the stronger card.

But context matters. The CMP 30HX was built for a single purpose: cryptocurrency mining. It has no display outputs, a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface that limits data transfer to the host, and a 125 W TDP that makes it power-efficient for its intended workload. Its 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is roughly half of the Pro Vega 64’s 11.06 TFLOPS, but mining algorithms often favor memory bandwidth and efficiency over raw FP32 throughput. The 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is respectable, and the 6 GB GDDR6 is adequate for many mining kernels.

The Pro Vega 64, conversely, is a professional compute card with 16 GB of HBM2, 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, and a 250 W TDP. It supports all major APIs and can drive displays in portable devices. It is a general-purpose workhorse, while the CMP 30HX is a specialized tool.

For a builder selecting a GPU for general compute or professional workloads, the Pro Vega 64 is the only rational choice from these two. For someone running a mining rig where power draw and PCIe bandwidth are secondary, the CMP 30HX’s lower TDP and smaller footprint (229 mm length, dual-slot) might be preferable—but the benchmark data offers no evidence that it mines better, only that it scores lower in Geekbench. The launch MSRP for the CMP 30HX was 799 USD, though that is irrelevant to current availability. The verdict from the numbers: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is the faster, more capable GPU in every measured test, and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX should only be considered for niche, mining-specific applications where its lower power draw and lack of display outputs are assets rather than liabilities.