AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 holds a clear lead, with an average benchmark score of 69,870 compared to the NVIDIA CMP 30HX's 63,842. That is a 9.4% advantage for the AMD card across all recorded tests.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 perform relative to its closest rivals?

A: The WX 8200 sits in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (0.2% slower), trails the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile by 0.4%, and beats the NVIDIA CMP 90HX by 1.3%. It is also 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE.

Q: What are the key benchmark wins for the AMD card in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The WX 8200 wins both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 69,774 against 65,199 for the CMP 30HX, a 7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens to 10.5%, with scores of 69,076 versus 62,484.

Q: Does the NVIDIA CMP 30HX have any performance advantage in the data?

A: No. The head-to-head results show zero wins for the CMP 30HX. Its only notable trait is that it matches the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (0% delta) and trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by just 0.6% in its nearest rival set.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD card uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s. The WX 8200's memory bandwidth is 52.4% higher.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 delivers 10.75 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the CMP 30HX's 5.027 TFLOPS. The AMD card also leads in texture rate (336.0 GTexel/s vs. 157.1 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (96.00 GPixel/s vs. 85.68 GPixel/s).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the superior compute product. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offers over twice the FP32 throughput, and delivers substantially more memory bandwidth. The 90th percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all GPUs, while the CMP 30HX sits just one percentile lower at 89.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the WX 8200 is the clear choice. Its 7% OpenCL lead and 10.5% Vulkan lead over the CMP 30HX are consistent across both APIs, indicating a general compute advantage rather than a workload-specific one. The AMD card also supports display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the NVIDIA card has none, making the WX 8200 the only viable option for any interactive or visualization work.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX, by contrast, is a specialized mining part with no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface. Its lower 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it more power-efficient in absolute terms, but that does not translate into competitive compute performance. With no benchmark wins against the WX 8200 and a lower average score, it is difficult to recommend the CMP 30HX for any general-purpose compute role.

Buyers should pick the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 for compute-heavy tasks, professional visualization, or any environment requiring display connectivity. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX only makes sense in narrowly defined mining scenarios where its lower power draw and compact 229 mm length are priorities over raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scoring 69,774 against 65,199 for the NVIDIA CMP 30HX. That 7% delta is significant but not overwhelming; it reflects the WX 8200's larger shader array and higher memory bandwidth rather than a fundamental architectural superiority. The AMD card's 3584 shading units dwarf the CMP 30HX's 1408, and its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 336.0 GB/s gives it a clear edge in bandwidth-bound kernels.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a similar story with a larger gap. The WX 8200 posts 69,076, while the CMP 30HX manages 62,484. The 10.5% delta suggests the AMD card scales better with Vulkan's lower-level API access, likely benefiting from its 64 ROPs and 224 TMUs against the NVIDIA card's 48 ROPs and 88 TMUs. The CMP 30HX's higher boost clock of 1785 MHz versus 1500 MHz cannot compensate for the massive resource deficit.

Across both tests, the WX 8200's average score of 69,870 aligns closely with its individual results, showing consistent performance. The CMP 30HX's average of 63,842 is slightly below its OpenCL score but above its Vulkan score, indicating some test-to-test variance. Still, the pattern is consistent: the AMD card wins by a solid margin in every measurable compute scenario.

Notably, the CMP 30HX has no Geekbench Metal score in the data, while the WX 8200 posts 70,759 in that test. This is likely because the NVIDIA card targets mining workloads where Metal is irrelevant, but it also highlights the CMP 30HX's narrow applicability. The WX 8200's three benchmark scores (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) are all within 2% of each other, suggesting stable cross-API performance.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory architecture. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. This yields bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s, a 52.4% advantage for AMD. The memory clock also differs: 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA, though the wider bus makes the AMD configuration far faster overall.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The WX 8200 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This translates to 10.75 TFLOPS FP32 for AMD versus 5.027 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 114% difference. The pixel rate gap is smaller at 96.00 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, but the texture rate gap is massive: 336.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The WX 8200 draws 230 W with a suggested 550 W PSU and requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The CMP 30HX draws 125 W with a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. Both are dual-slot cards, but the WX 8200 is longer at 267 mm versus 229 mm. The NVIDIA card is thinner at 35 mm width, though the AMD card's width is not listed.

Interface and output differences are critical. The WX 8200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4 and has no display outputs. The process node also differs: 14 nm GlobalFoundries for AMD versus 12 nm TSMC for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are 12,500 million on a 495 mm² die for AMD versus 6,600 million on a 284 mm² die for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 is built on GCN 5.0 architecture using the Vega 10 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: GCN 5.0 emphasizes wide parallel compute with a massive shader count, while Turing (in this implementation) uses a smaller, more efficient layout.

The transistor density tells an interesting story. AMD packs 25.3M transistors per mm² across 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. NVIDIA achieves 23.2M transistors per mm² with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The AMD chip is 74% larger by die area and carries 89% more transistors, which explains the performance gap but also the higher 230 W TDP versus 125 W.

Cache and feature differences are not directly listed, but the API support shows a distinction. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3. This is a minor version difference but could matter for future software compatibility.

The generations are entirely different categories. The WX 8200 belongs to the "Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x200)" generation and was released on 2018-08-12, with a predecessor of "Radeon Pro GCN" and a successor of "Radeon Pro Vega." The CMP 30HX belongs to "Mining GPUs" generation, released on 2021-02-24, with no predecessor or successor listed.

The lack of RT cores and tensor cores on both cards is notable. Neither supports dedicated ray tracing or AI acceleration hardware, making them both pure compute parts. The WX 8200's FP16 performance is 21.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the CMP 30HX achieves 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), maintaining the same 2:1 ratio but at half the absolute performance.