AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy between these two accelerators. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the decisive winner in every measured benchmark, taking both head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 110,725 places it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX sits at 63,842 average, in the 89th percentile. The performance gap is substantial: the W7900 leads by 29.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 119.4% in Geekbench Vulkan.

The W7900 is the appropriate choice for compute-heavy professional workloads, particularly those leveraging Vulkan, where it more than doubles the CMP 30HX score. It targets users who need large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and modern API support. The CMP 30HX, by contrast, is an end-of-life mining product with no display outputs. Its data shows it is competitive only with older or lower-tier cards like the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (0% delta) or the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (0.2% ahead). Neither card should be selected for gaming or general desktop use; the CMP 30HX lacks outputs entirely, and the W7900 is a workstation part.

For anyone building a professional rendering or compute system, the W7900 is the only rational pick based on the benchmark evidence. The CMP 30HX is a legacy product with a narrow purpose, and its benchmark scores do not justify any modern workload adoption.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 109.1 million per mm².

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip based on the older Turing architecture. It is built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with just 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Its transistor density is only 23.2 million per mm². This represents a massive generational leap in fabrication efficiency for the AMD part.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The W7900 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s. The W7900 has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. The CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed.

Clock behavior also differs. The W7900 runs at a base of 1760 MHz and boosts to 2495 MHz. The CMP 30HX runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7900 versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the CMP 30HX. The W7900 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severe interface limitation.

API support favors the W7900, which lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 30HX lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The W7900 also has display outputs (3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1), while the CMP 30HX has no outputs at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379 against 65,199 for the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, a 29.4% advantage. This is a solid, but not overwhelming, win. It shows the W7900 handles general compute tasks with significantly more throughput.

The Vulkan result is far more lopsided. The W7900 scores 137,070, while the CMP 30HX scores 62,484, giving the AMD card a 119.4% lead. That is more than double the performance. This suggests the W7900's modern architecture and API support translate into a massive advantage in low-level graphics and compute APIs. The CMP 30HX, despite its Turing roots, appears poorly optimized for Vulkan workloads, likely due to its mining-oriented design and lack of display functionality.

The wins tally is 2 for the W7900 and 0 for the CMP 30HX. There is no benchmark in the database where the NVIDIA card comes out ahead. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 110,725 for the W7900 versus 63,842 for the CMP 30HX, a difference of roughly 73%.

For context, the W7900's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (3.2% faster) and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (2.8% slower). The CMP 30HX sits near the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (0.6% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (0% delta). This shows the CMP 30HX is not merely slower than the W7900; it belongs to a completely different performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379 versus 65,199 for the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, a 29.4% lead.

Q: How large is the gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The W7900 scores 137,070 against 62,484 for the CMP 30HX, a 119.4% advantage, meaning it is more than twice as fast.

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

A: No. The CMP 30HX has no outputs at all, while the W7900 offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6. The W7900 also has a 384-bit bus versus 192-bit, and bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards comparable in any benchmark?

A: No. The W7900 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. The CMP 30HX's closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (0.2% ahead), showing it sits far below the W7900's tier.

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 lists ray tracing cores (96). The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins all measured categories. In OpenCL, its 29.4% lead indicates strong general-purpose compute performance. In Vulkan, the 119.4% lead shows exceptional low-level API efficiency, likely benefiting applications that use modern graphics pipelines or compute shaders. The W7900 also wins on memory capacity (48 GB versus 6 GB), bandwidth (864.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s), and pixel/texture throughput (479.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, 958.1 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s). Its FP32 output is 61.32 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS for the CMP 30HX.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no benchmark wins. Its only advantages in the data are physical: a lower TDP (125 W versus 295 W), a dual-slot cooler versus triple-slot, and a smaller footprint (229 mm length versus 280 mm). It also has a lower launch MSRP, but that does not translate into any performance benefit. For workloads that do not require display output and prioritize low power consumption, the CMP 30HX could be considered, but the benchmark data offers no scenario where it outperforms the W7900.

For professional rendering, scientific computing, or any task using Vulkan, the W7900 is the clear choice. For legacy mining operations where display output is irrelevant and power draw is the primary constraint, the CMP 30HX might have a niche, but its end-of-life status and PCIe 1.0 x4 interface make it a questionable investment even there.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ, according to the database.

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7900 | NVIDIA CMP 30HX |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1760 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2495 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 864.0 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 384 | 88 |

| ROPs | 192 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 96 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 479.0 GPixel/s | 85.68 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 958.1 GTexel/s | 157.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.32 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 295 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

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

| Dimensions | 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-05-25 | 2021-02-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 3,999 USD | 799 USD |

The two cards share the same memory type (GDDR6), foundry (TSMC), OpenGL version (4.6), and Vulkan version (1.4). Everything else in the specification sheet diverges, reflecting their entirely different market positions.