Intel Arc A550M vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX and Intel Arc A550M represent two fundamentally different approaches to GPU design, yet benchmark results place them in a near dead heat. The data shows a fascinating split: the CMP 50HX takes a decisive victory in OpenCL, while the Arc A550M counters in Vulkan. Both cards hold an identical 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 4.1%. This is a tale of two architectures, each optimized for different workloads, with the numbers revealing that raw specifications do not always translate directly into performance parity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX leads with an average benchmark score of 51,790, compared to the Intel Arc A550M's 49,737. This puts the CMP 50HX 4.1% ahead of the Arc A550M in overall average performance.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 56,135 versus 49,894 for the Intel Arc A550M. This represents a 12.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card in this specific workload.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A550M win any benchmark against the CMP 50HX?

A: Yes, the Arc A550M takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 49,580 against the CMP 50HX's 47,445. The Intel card holds a 4.3% lead in this API.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card according to the data?

A: The CMP 50HX's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, which scores 50,951, just 1.6% behind. For the Arc A550M, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is nearest with a score of 49,957, a negligible 0.4% difference.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX offers 560.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 2.5 times the 224.0 GB/s provided by the Intel Arc A550M.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Arc A550M's Xe-HPG chip has a transistor density of 53.4M per mm², while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX's Turing chip has a density of 24.7M per mm². The Intel chip is more than twice as dense.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX employs the TU102 chip built on Turing architecture using a 12 nm process from TSMC. This is a massive die measuring 754 mm², housing 18,600 million transistors. In contrast, the Intel Arc A550M uses the DG2-512 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also by TSMC. The Intel die is significantly smaller at 406 mm² but packs more transistors at 21,700 million, resulting in a transistor density of 53.4M per mm² versus the NVIDIA chip's 24.7M per mm².

The compute configurations diverge considerably. The CMP 50HX fields 3,584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 80 render output units, 56 ray tracing cores, and 448 tensor cores. The Arc A550M counters with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores, but notably has no tensor cores listed. This suggests NVIDIA's design emphasis on AI-assisted workloads, while Intel's architecture focuses on traditional rasterization with a lighter ray tracing implementation.

Clock speeds tell another story of design philosophy. The CMP 50HX runs at a base clock of 1350 MHz boosting to 1545 MHz, whereas the Arc A550M has a much lower base of 900 MHz but a far higher boost of 2050 MHz. This indicates the Intel card is designed to scale aggressively under load, while the NVIDIA card maintains a more steady clock profile. Memory configurations also differ sharply: the CMP 50HX carries 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, while the Arc A550M has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus. Both use 14 Gbps effective memory speed, but the wider NVIDIA bus delivers 560.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s for Intel.

Power and form factor reveal their intended environments. The CMP 50HX is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. It has no display outputs, reflecting its mining origins. The Arc A550M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 60 W TDP and portable device dependent display outputs, designed for mobile integration. The bus interfaces differ as well: the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a curious choice, while Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results present a clear split based on API. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX posts a score of 56,135 against the Intel Arc A550M's 49,894. This 12.5% margin is substantial and reflects the NVIDIA card's superior raw compute throughput, likely driven by its 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus Intel's 8.397 TFLOPS. The CMP 50HX also has a higher texture rate at 296.6 GTexel/s compared to 262.4 GTexel/s, and more shading units to feed.

However, the Vulkan test flips the script. The Intel Arc A550M scores 49,580, beating the CMP 50HX's 47,445 by 4.3%. This is notable because Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies. The Arc A550M achieves a higher pixel rate at 131.2 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, despite having fewer ROPs. This suggests Intel's architecture may have better occupancy or scheduling efficiency in Vulkan workloads.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these individual results. The CMP 50HX averages 51,790, sitting 1.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and 3.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. The Arc A550M averages 49,737, which is 0.4% below the RTX 5070 Ti and 0.5% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64. Both cards sit in the same performance tier, with the CMP 50HX's OpenCL advantage being offset by the Arc's Vulkan strength in the aggregate.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals numerous divergences beyond the architectural core. The manufacturing process differs: NVIDIA uses 12 nm while Intel uses 6 nm. Die size varies significantly from 754 mm² to 406 mm². Transistor counts differ by 3,100 million in Intel's favor, though the NVIDIA die is nearly double the physical size.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator, with the CMP 50HX delivering 560.0 GB/s against the Arc A550M's 224.0 GB/s. This stems from bus width (320-bit versus 128-bit) and memory size (10 GB versus 8 GB). Clock strategies also diverge: NVIDIA's base clock of 1350 MHz is higher, but Intel's boost of 2050 MHz surpasses NVIDIA's 1545 MHz.

The compute units show NVIDIA's numerical advantage: 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 448 tensor cores versus Intel's 2,048, 128, 64, and 16 respectively. The FP32 output reflects this at 11.07 TFLOPS versus 8.397 TFLOPS. Power consumption is dramatically different at 250 W versus 60 W, and the form factor ranges from dual-slot with 2x 8-pin connectors to IGP with no connectors. Display outputs are absent on NVIDIA but portable device dependent on Intel. The CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4 while the Arc A550M uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins decisively in OpenCL, a general-purpose compute API. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput, larger memory bandwidth, and greater texture fill rate. The 12.5% margin in this test suggests workloads leveraging OpenCL, such as certain scientific computations or rendering pipelines, will favor the NVIDIA card. Its 10 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for large datasets compared to Intel's 8 GB.

The Intel Arc A550M wins in Vulkan, a modern graphics API used in gaming and real-time rendering. The 4.3% advantage indicates Intel's architecture handles draw calls and command buffers efficiently. Despite lower raw specs, the Arc achieves a higher pixel rate, suggesting better utilization of its ROPs per clock. This makes it the stronger choice for Vulkan-based gaming or real-time graphics workloads.

The average scores suggest a slight overall edge for NVIDIA, but the margin is thin. The CMP 50HX sits 3.6% above the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, while the Arc A550M is 2.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT. Both cards occupy the same performance tier, with their respective API strengths defining their use cases.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, offering 12.5% higher performance in that benchmark alongside double the memory bandwidth and more than 2 GB of additional VRAM. Its higher FP32 and texture rates make it suited for raw throughput scenarios, though its 250 W power draw and lack of display outputs limit it to dedicated compute roles.

The Intel Arc A550M wins for Vulkan-based graphics workloads, delivering 4.3% better performance in that API. Its 60 W power envelope and portable device dependent outputs make it a mobile-friendly solution. The higher boost clock of 2050 MHz suggests it can scale performance dynamically. For users prioritizing Vulkan gaming or real-time rendering in a power-constrained environment, the Arc A550M is the data-backed choice.

Both cards sit at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, indicating comparable overall standing. The NVIDIA card edges ahead in average benchmark score at 51,790 versus 49,737, but the Intel card's Vulkan strength and dramatically lower power consumption make it a compelling alternative for its target use case. The verdict depends entirely on whether the workload favors OpenCL or Vulkan, as the benchmark results show no clear all-around winner.