Intel Arc Pro A60 vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60, with an average benchmark score of 60,326, outperforms the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, which scores 51,790. This places the Arc Pro A60 in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, while the CMP 50HX sits in the 86th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The Arc Pro A60 wins both head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 63,485 against 56,135 for the CMP 50HX, a 13.1% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens to 20.5%, with scores of 57,166 and 47,445 respectively.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two cards?

A: The Arc Pro A60 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 320-bit bus, which provides 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX leads in raw FP32 performance with 11.07 TFLOPS, compared to the Arc Pro A60's 8.397 TFLOPS. The CMP 50HX also has more shading units (3,584 vs. 2,048) and a higher texture rate (296.6 GTexel/s vs. 262.4 GTexel/s).

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP with a suggested 300 W power supply, while the CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W power supply. The CMP 50HX is also dual-slot with two 8-pin power connectors, whereas the Arc Pro A60 is single-slot with no specified power connectors.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60 is listed as "Active" and was released on June 5, 2023. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is "End-of-life" and was released on June 23, 2021.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between compute-oriented specifications and real-world benchmark results. If the decision rests solely on benchmark scores, the Intel Arc Pro A60 is the definitive choice. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 13.1% advantage in OpenCL and a substantial 20.5% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 60,326 also places it 16.5% above the CMP 50HX's 51,790.

However, the CMP 50HX is not without justification. Its raw compute numbers are superior: 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 versus 8.397 TFLOPS, a 31.8% higher texture rate, and a memory bandwidth of 560.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s. The card also has 3,584 shading units and 448 tensor cores, features that could be relevant in specific compute workloads that leverage these resources.

The practical context matters. The Arc Pro A60 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it a functional workstation card for display-driven tasks. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, reflecting its mining-oriented design. The CMP 50HX is also end-of-life, while the Arc Pro A60 remains active. For any user needing a working GPU with display connectivity and competitive benchmark performance, the Arc Pro A60 is the rational pick. For a niche workload that heavily favors raw FP32 or tensor throughput and does not require display output, the CMP 50HX's specification sheet offers theoretical advantages, though its benchmark results do not confirm them.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The Arc Pro A60 is built on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-256 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Pro Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die. The transistor density is 42.8M per mm².

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX uses the Turing architecture with the TU102 chip, part of NVIDIA's Mining GPUs generation. It is built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, but packs 18,600 million transistors into a much larger 754 mm² die. The transistor density is significantly lower at 24.7M per mm², reflecting the older process node.

The compute resources differ markedly. The Arc Pro A60 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 448 tensor cores. The Arc Pro A60 does not list tensor cores. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity is maintained despite the internal differences.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The Arc Pro A60 uses a 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6, while the CMP 50HX uses a 320-bit bus with 10 GB of GDDR6. The CMP 50HX's wider bus gives it a bandwidth advantage, but the Arc Pro A60 benefits from a smaller, more modern die with higher transistor density.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Arc Pro A60 wins both tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc Pro A60 scores 63,485 against the CMP 50HX's 56,135. This is a 13.1% delta in favor of the Intel card. The margin is even more pronounced in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Arc Pro A60 scores 57,166 and the CMP 50HX scores 47,445, a 20.5% advantage.

These results are notable because the CMP 50HX has a higher theoretical FP32 throughput (11.07 TFLOPS vs. 8.397 TFLOPS) and more shading units. The benchmark data suggests that raw compute specifications do not translate directly into real-world performance. The Arc Pro A60's newer architecture and driver optimization likely contribute to its stronger showing.

Contextualizing against the nearest rivals reinforces the Arc Pro A60's position. Its average score of 60,326 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60,347 (0% delta), and it is 2.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M by 2.5%. The CMP 50HX, by contrast, sits among different company: its 51,790 average is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and 4.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A550M.

The Vulkan test is where the Arc Pro A60 shines brightest. A 20.5% lead in a modern graphics API indicates a significant software and architecture advantage. The OpenCL result, while narrower, still shows a clear victory. With 2 wins and 0 losses, the Arc Pro A60 is the definitive benchmark champion.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every specification field. The Arc Pro A60 uses the DG2-256 chip on a 6 nm process, while the CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip on a 12 nm process. The transistor counts are 11,500 million for the Intel card and 18,600 million for the NVIDIA card, with die sizes of 269 mm² and 754 mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the CMP 50HX in base frequency: 1350 MHz versus 900 MHz. However, the Arc Pro A60 has a higher boost clock at 2050 MHz versus 1545 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the Arc Pro A60 running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and the CMP 50HX at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth tell a mixed story. The Arc Pro A60 has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB on a 320-bit bus, yielding 560.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has a 45.8% bandwidth advantage, but the Intel card has 20% more memory capacity.

Compute resources favor the CMP 50HX in count: 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 448 tensor cores. The Arc Pro A60 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. Despite fewer units, the Arc Pro A60 achieves a higher pixel rate of 131.2 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s. The texture rate favors the CMP 50HX at 296.6 GTexel/s versus 262.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics are starkly different. The Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP and is single-slot, with no power connectors listed and a suggested 300 W PSU. The CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The CMP 50HX also has listed dimensions of 267 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 35 mm in width.

The bus interface and display outputs are the final differentiators. The Arc Pro A60 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4 and has no display outputs. The CMP 50HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a notable bottleneck for a modern GPU, likely a deliberate design choice for mining workloads where bandwidth to the host is less critical. The Arc Pro A60's full PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and display support make it a far more versatile component.