GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, two-way comparison between the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, with the AMD card winning both recorded head-to-head tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 73,514 against the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 65,199, a 12.8% advantage. That is a substantial margin for a compute-oriented workload, suggesting the AMD card’s architecture is better suited to general-purpose parallel processing as measured by this test. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD card scores 78,428 versus the NVIDIA card’s 62,484, a 25.5% lead. This is a decisive victory for AMD in a modern graphics API, indicating that the Radeon PRO W6600 not only performs better but scales more effectively when leveraging Vulkan’s low-level overhead.

Looking at the aggregate average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 sits at 81,995, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is at 63,842. The AMD card’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is 92, compared to 89 for the NVIDIA card. While both are strong performers, the AMD card is closer to the top of the overall distribution. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the AMD Radeon PRO W6600’s closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, has an average score of 80,959, only 1.3% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 is 2.7% behind at 79,842, and the Tesla P100 variants are 3% to 3.3% behind. This shows the W6600 is punching above its weight, outperforming even a flagship consumer card in these aggregate metrics. In contrast, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP is exactly tied at 63,830, the RX 7600M is 0.1% ahead, and the Radeon Pro Vega 56 is 0.2% ahead. The only rival it beats is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, which is 0.6% behind. This indicates the CMP 30HX is in a highly competitive mid-range band, where small margins define placement.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins decisively in every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL, its 12.8% lead over the NVIDIA CMP 30HX translates into a meaningful real-world advantage for compute workloads that rely on this API, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Vulkan result is even more telling: a 25.5% lead suggests that the AMD card handles modern, low-level graphics APIs with much greater efficiency, likely due to its newer architecture and higher raw throughput. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance in cross-platform APIs, the data points squarely to the AMD card.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX, however, does have one distinct advantage that is not captured in the benchmark scores: it is designed as a mining GPU with no display outputs. This means it has no video output capability, which is a critical differentiator. The data shows it has a higher memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s compared to the AMD card’s 224.0 GB/s, despite having less total memory (6 GB versus 8 GB). This suggests the NVIDIA card is tuned for memory-intensive tasks like hash-rate calculations, where bandwidth is more critical than raw compute. In that specific niche, the CMP 30HX might outperform despite its lower FP32 throughput. However, for any general-purpose or graphics workload, the benchmark evidence is unambiguous: the AMD card wins both tests with substantial margins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using a 7 nm process node from TSMC, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the older Turing architecture on a 12 nm node, also from TSMC. This process advantage is significant: the AMD card packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA card, in contrast, has only 6,600 million transistors on a larger 284 mm² die, resulting in a density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. That is roughly half the density, which explains why the AMD card can deliver higher performance at a lower power draw.

Clock speeds further differentiate the two. The AMD card has a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The AMD card’s higher clocks, combined with its superior architecture, drive its performance lead. The memory subsystems also differ: the AMD card uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA card has 6 GB on a wider 192-bit bus. The NVIDIA card’s wider bus gives it higher bandwidth (336 GB/s versus 224 GB/s), but the AMD card’s higher clocks and newer architecture compensate in the benchmarks. In terms of compute units, the AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, with 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. This means the AMD card offers hardware ray tracing support, a feature the NVIDIA card lacks entirely.

The AMD card also boasts a more modern API feature set: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA card only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the AMD card’s higher-tier DirectX support is a clear generational advantage. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate of 165.1 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card, and a higher texture rate of 289.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. These differences underscore the AMD card’s superior rasterization and compute capabilities. Finally, the AMD card has a single-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot with no display outputs, reflecting their different intended use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has an average benchmark score of 81,995, compared to 63,842 for the NVIDIA CMP 30HX.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 78,428 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 62,484, giving the AMD card a 25.5% lead.

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

A: No, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no display outputs, as it is designed for mining workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 delivers 9.247 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX delivers 5.027 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has a higher memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, compared to 224.0 GB/s for the AMD Radeon PRO W6600.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 | NVIDIA CMP 30HX |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2331 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2580 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 112 | 88 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 165.1 GPixel/s | 85.68 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 289.0 GTexel/s | 157.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.247 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

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

| Length | 241 mm | 229 mm |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | 799 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 outperforms the NVIDIA CMP 30HX in every recorded benchmark. With a 12.8% lead in OpenCL and a 25.5% lead in Vulkan, the AMD card is the superior choice for any workload that uses these APIs. Its higher FP32 throughput (9.247 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS), more shading units (1792 versus 1408), and ray tracing support make it a more versatile and powerful card. The AMD card also has a lower TDP of 100 W versus 125 W, meaning it delivers better performance while drawing less power. Its single-slot form factor and display outputs make it suitable for professional workstations, while the NVIDIA card’s lack of outputs limits it to mining or headless compute tasks.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX does have one advantage: its memory bandwidth of 336 GB/s is 50% higher than the AMD card’s, which could benefit certain memory-bound algorithms. However, this advantage does not translate into benchmark wins, as the AMD card’s superior compute capabilities dominate. The NVIDIA card also has a higher launch MSRP of 799 USD compared to 649 USD for the AMD card, despite being slower in every test. For any user who needs a general-purpose GPU with strong compute performance, the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the clear choice. For a niche mining use case where bandwidth matters and display output is irrelevant, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX might have a place, but the benchmark data shows it is outclassed in almost every measurable way. The AMD card wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, and the percentile rankings (92 versus 89) confirm its higher standing in the overall GPU landscape.