AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in this pairing: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX beats the AMD Radeon RX 6550M in both benchmark tests available in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 65,199 against AMD's 42,536, a margin of 53.3%. That is a massive gap, more than half again as much performance in a compute-oriented workload. The Vulkan result is closer but still decisive: 62,484 for NVIDIA versus 50,867 for AMD, a 22.8% advantage.

To put these numbers in context, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX sits at the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 63,842. Its nearest rivals are all AMD cards: the RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (0% delta), the RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.1% ahead of the CMP), and the Pro Vega 56 at 63,693 (0.2% ahead). Only the Pro WX 9100 at 64,212 edges it out by 0.6%. So the CMP 30HX is effectively neck-and-neck with a group of modern mid-range cards, and its 53.3% lead over the RX 6550M is not a small outlier; it reflects a fundamentally different performance class.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 46,702 and sits at the 85th percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag: the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0.2% behind), the AMD RX 5600M at 46,601 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.4% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (1.6% behind). The RX 6550M is competitive within its own tier, but that tier is roughly 27% lower in average score than the CMP 30HX's tier. The delta between the two cards' average scores (63,842 versus 46,702) works out to about a 36.7% gap, which aligns with the per-test results.

Breaking down the individual tests further: in OpenCL, the CMP 30HX's 65,199 is not just a win; it is a dominant one. The RX 6550M's 42,536 is the lowest score in this comparison by a wide margin. In Vulkan, the gap narrows to 22.8%, suggesting the AMD card is relatively stronger in graphics-oriented APIs, but it still loses by a substantial amount. The data does not show any test where the RX 6550M wins, so the head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has an average benchmark score of 63,842, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M averages 46,702. That puts the CMP 30HX at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the RX 6550M at the 85th percentile.

Q: Is the NVIDIA card faster in every benchmark test?

A: Yes. The CMP 30HX wins Geekbench OpenCL by 53.3% (65,199 vs 42,536) and Geekbench Vulkan by 22.8% (62,484 vs 50,867). The database records 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: How does the RX 6550M compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: It is marginally ahead of the Intel Arc A530M by 0.2%, the AMD RX 5600M by 0.2%, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4%, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.6%. It is competitive in its tier, but that tier is far below the CMP 30HX's.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the CMP 30HX?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP matches it at 0% delta, the RX 7600M is 0.1% ahead, and the Pro Vega 56 is 0.2% ahead. Only the Pro WX 9100 beats it by more than half a percent, at 0.6% ahead.

Q: Does the RX 6550M have any advantage in raw compute specs?

A: Despite losing benchmarks, the RX 6550M has a higher FP32 rating (5.816 TFLOPS vs 5.027 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (181.8 GTexel/s vs 157.1 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (90.88 GPixel/s vs 85.68 GPixel/s). Yet the measured performance does not reflect those theoretical advantages.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan-based workloads?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX still wins, but the margin is smaller at 22.8% compared to 53.3% in OpenCL. The RX 6550M's Vulkan score of 50,867 is much closer to the CMP's 62,484 than its OpenCL score was.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the faster card by a wide margin, winning both recorded benchmarks and holding a 36.7% lead in average score. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on performance should take the CMP 30HX, especially for OpenCL-heavy compute tasks where it is 53.3% faster. The RX 6550M does not win a single test, so there is no scenario in this database where it outperforms the NVIDIA card.

However, context matters. The CMP 30HX is a dual-slot, 125 W card with a single 8-pin power connector and no display outputs. It is a mining-specific product, end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of 799 USD. The RX 6550M is an active mobile GPU, consumes 80 W, has no power connectors, and is listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs. If you need a card that outputs video or fits in a low-power mobile chassis, the RX 6550M is the only one of the two that makes sense, despite losing on raw performance.

For raw compute, the CMP 30HX is the clear pick. For any display or portable use case, the RX 6550M is the only viable option. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 144.0 GB/s. That is a 192 GB/s difference in bandwidth, more than double for the NVIDIA card.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2840 MHz, with a game clock of 2560 MHz. The CMP 30HX runs at 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor AMD: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Despite the lower clocks, the CMP 30HX wins due to its wider bus.

The CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also has a larger die at 284 mm² compared to 107 mm², and more transistors at 6,600 million versus 5,400 million. However, the RX 6550M has a much higher transistor density: 50.5M per mm² versus 23.2M per mm², due to its 6 nm process versus 12 nm.

Power and physical specs diverge as well. The CMP 30HX is rated at 125 W TDP, dual-slot, 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, 35 mm wide, with a 1x 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 6550M is 80 W, listed as IGP (integrated graphics package), no slot width, no power connectors, no listed dimensions, and no suggested PSU. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA, PCIe 4.0 x4 for AMD. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs; the RX 6550M is "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is built on the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. It has no RT cores and no tensor cores. Its FP32 compute is rated at 5.027 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, on TSMC's 6 nm process. It includes 16 RT cores, which the NVIDIA card lacks entirely. Its FP32 is higher at 5.816 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1). It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6550M's predecessor is listed as "Polaris Mobile," while the CMP 30HX has no predecessor or successor recorded.

The key architectural differences are the process node (6 nm vs 12 nm), the presence of RT cores (16 vs 0), and the DirectX feature level (12_2 Ultimate vs 12_1). The RX 6550M is also part of the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi Mobile generation, while the CMP 30HX belongs to NVIDIA's Mining GPUs generation. The RX 6550M's higher transistor density (50.5M/mm² vs 23.2M/mm²) reflects the smaller node. Despite these architectural advantages for AMD, the benchmark results favor NVIDIA, indicating that the CMP 30HX's wider memory bus and higher shading unit count outweigh the RX 6550M's newer architecture and higher clocks.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX wins in every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL, it is 53.3% faster, which suggests a significant advantage in compute-heavy applications that rely on this API. In Vulkan, it is 22.8% faster, a smaller but still decisive margin. The CMP 30HX also has 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 144.0 GB/s, which likely contributes to its dominance in memory-intensive workloads. It sits at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of the database's entries.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M does not win any benchmark, but it has clear advantages in other areas. It is an active, current product with a lower TDP of 80 W, no power connector requirement, and a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. It includes 16 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, making it a better fit for modern graphics features if the software leverages those capabilities. Its higher boost clock (2840 MHz vs 1785 MHz) and higher FP32 rating (5.816 TFLOPS vs 5.027 TFLOPS) indicate theoretical compute headroom that the benchmarks do not reflect, likely due to memory bandwidth limitations.

For use cases: the CMP 30HX is the choice for raw compute performance, OpenCL workloads, and any task where memory bandwidth is critical. The RX 6550M is the choice for portable or low-power systems, for use cases requiring display output, and for workloads that benefit from DirectX 12 Ultimate or ray tracing features, assuming the software uses them. The data shows no scenario where the RX 6550M beats the CMP 30HX in raw performance, but the AMD card's feature set and power profile make it suitable for a completely different class of system.