AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes only two common benchmark tests between these two cards, and the results split cleanly. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64's 62,552, a 4.2% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a modest win, but it places the CMP 30HX squarely in the upper tier of the database's GPU rankings, with a percentile of 89 among all GPUs. In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn decisively: the RX Vega 64 scores 67,032 versus 62,484 for the CMP 30HX, a 6.8% lead for AMD. That is a wider margin than NVIDIA's OpenCL win, suggesting the Vega architecture handles Vulkan workloads with notably better efficiency relative to its rival.

Looking at the average benchmark score, there is an interesting discrepancy. The CMP 30HX has an average benchmark score of 63,842, while the RX Vega 64's average is 50,001. However, this average is computed over different test sets, since the Vega 64 also includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1,669 and a Geekbench Metal score of 68,750, both absent from the NVIDIA card's record. The two head-to-head tests tell a more focused story: one win each, with AMD's Vulkan margin (6.8%) exceeding NVIDIA's OpenCL margin (4.2%). The data does not support a claim of overall superiority in compute; instead, it points to API-specific strengths.

Another layer of context comes from each card's nearest rivals. The CMP 30HX sits within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, which scores 64,212, and within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63,693. This clustering suggests the CMP 30HX's compute performance is essentially at parity with a family of prosumer AMD cards. The RX Vega 64, meanwhile, is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957, a 0.1% delta) and the Intel Arc A550M (49,737, a 0.5% delta), while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 1.9% and leading the RX 6800 XT by 3.1%. These comparisons reinforce that the Vega 64, despite its age, remains competitive in its measured average, but the CMP 30HX has a higher raw average score and percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 versus 62,552 for the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, a 4.2% advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 67,032 versus 62,484 for the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, a 6.8% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has an average benchmark score of 63,842, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has an average of 50,001. The CMP 30HX also ranks in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the Vega 64.

Q: Does the RX Vega 64 have any benchmark results not recorded for the CMP 30HX?

A: Yes. The Vega 64 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,669 and a Geekbench Metal score of 68,750. The CMP 30HX has no recorded results for those tests.

Q: How do the cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The CMP 30HX is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 and 0.6% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100. The RX Vega 64 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, 0.5% behind the Intel Arc A550M, 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, and 3.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT.

Q: Is one card clearly faster overall?

A: No. Each card wins exactly one head-to-head benchmark, and the margins are single-digit percentages. The CMP 30HX has a higher average score and percentile, but only because the test sets differ.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is built on the TU116 chip using the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process from TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip with the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is far larger at 495 mm² and holds 12,500 million transistors, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The Vega chip is roughly 74% larger by area and carries nearly twice the transistor count, though its density advantage over NVIDIA is modest.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, running at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for 483.8 GB/s. That bandwidth gap is substantial: AMD's card delivers about 44% more memory throughput, which matters for compute-heavy workloads that saturate memory. The CMP 30HX's narrower bus and smaller frame buffer suggest it was not designed for large dataset residency.

Compute resources tell a similar story of scale. The Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. In raw throughput, Vega reaches 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 25.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the CMP 30HX delivers 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). AMD's card offers more than double the FP32 compute. Pixel rate favors AMD at 98.94 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, and texture rate is even more lopsided at 395.8 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s.

Power and interface differences are stark. The CMP 30HX has a 125 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU. The RX Vega 64 has a 295 W TDP, dual 8-pin connectors, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The CMP 30HX also uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, which is a severe bottleneck for a card with this much compute capability, whereas the Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards are dual-slot, but the Vega 64 is longer at 280 mm (11 inches) versus 229 mm (9 inches), and slightly thicker at 40 mm (1.6 inches) versus 35 mm (1.4 inches). Height is identical at 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Display outputs differ completely. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs, consistent with its mining-focused generation. The RX Vega 64 includes 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is nearly identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the CMP 30HX lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 64 lists Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload. For compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX holds a 4.2% edge over the RX Vega 64 in the recorded benchmark. Its higher average benchmark score of 63,842 and 89th percentile ranking also suggest that, across its tested workloads, it lands higher in the overall distribution. But the CMP 30HX is a mining-oriented card: no display outputs, a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, and a 6 GB memory capacity that limits working sets. It is not a general-purpose GPU.

For Vulkan-centric workloads, the RX Vega 64 wins by a larger margin, 6.8%, and it offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory subsystem gives it a meaningful advantage for data-intensive tasks. It also has display outputs, so it can serve as a conventional graphics card, and its 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the CMP 30HX's 5.027 TFLOPS. The Vega 64's power draw is much higher, 295 W versus 125 W, and it requires a 600 W PSU.

Who should pick which? If the use case is compute-only, headless operation, and power efficiency matters, the CMP 30HX is the more sensible option from the recorded data. It wins the OpenCL test, consumes less than half the power, and has a higher average score. If the task involves Vulkan, needs more memory bandwidth or capacity, or requires display output, the RX Vega 64 is the better choice. Its Vulkan win and massive bandwidth advantage are not trivial. Neither card is a universal winner; each dominates in a specific domain.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards.

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA vs AMD
• Chip: TU116 vs Vega 10
• Architecture: Turing vs GCN 5.0
• Generation: Mining GPUs vs Vega (RX Vega)
• Process node: 12 nm vs 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 6,600 million vs 12,500 million
• Die size: 284 mm² vs 495 mm²
• Transistor density: 23.2M / mm² vs 25.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1530 MHz vs 1247 MHz
• Boost clock: 1785 MHz vs 1546 MHz
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective vs 945 MHz, 1890 Mbps effective
• Memory size: 6 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 vs HBM2
• Memory bus width: 192 bit vs 2048 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 336.0 GB/s vs 483.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 1408 vs 4096
• TMUs: 88 vs 256
• ROPs: 48 vs 64
• Pixel rate: 85.68 GPixel/s vs 98.94 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 157.1 GTexel/s vs 395.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 5.027 TFLOPS vs 12.66 TFLOPS
• FP16: 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 125 W vs 295 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs 600 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 1.0 x4 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs vs 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Vulkan version: 1.4 vs 1.3
• Length: 229 mm (9 inches) vs 280 mm (11 inches)
• Width: 35 mm (1.4 inches) vs 40 mm (1.6 inches)
• Release date: 2021-02-24 vs 2017-08-06
• Predecessor: null vs Polaris
• Successor: null vs Navi
• Launch MSRP: 799 USD vs 499 USD

Fields that are identical include height (111 mm), slot width (Dual-slot), DirectX version (12_1), OpenGL version (4.6), production status (End-of-life), and the absence of ray tracing and tensor cores on both cards.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX wins in OpenCL compute, with a 4.2% margin over the RX Vega 64. It also wins on power efficiency, drawing 125 W versus 295 W, and on physical footprint, being 51 mm shorter. Its launch MSRP is 799 USD, which is higher than the Vega 64's 499 USD, but the data does not assess whether that price is justified. The CMP 30HX also achieves a higher average benchmark score (63,842) and a higher percentile (89th versus 86th).

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins in Vulkan, with a 6.8% margin. It has more than double the FP32 throughput (12.66 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS), nearly triple the texture rate (395.8 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s), and significantly more memory bandwidth (483.8 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s). It also offers 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB, and is the only one of the two with display outputs. Its 2048-bit HBM2 bus is a fundamental design advantage for memory-bound workloads.

For use-case selection, the pattern is straightforward. Headless compute environments that prioritize OpenCL and low power draw favor the CMP 30HX. Systems that need Vulkan performance, large memory bandwidth, or any kind of display connectivity favor the RX Vega 64. The data does not reveal a scenario where one card wins across all tests; the choice depends entirely on the target API and workload profile.