NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA CMP 70HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data splits exactly one win each, but the magnitude of those wins is far from symmetrical. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A2 posts a score of 35,357 against the CMP 70HX’s 25,135. That is a 40.7% advantage for the A2, a decisive margin in compute workloads that favor the OpenCL API. The CMP 70HX, by contrast, takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 35,817 versus the A2’s 34,023. That difference is only 5%, a much narrower victory.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The A2 averages 34,690 across all recorded tests, which places it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The CMP 70HX averages 30,476, landing in the 75th percentile. So while the head-to-head split is even in wins, the A2 holds a higher overall standing. The data indicates the A2 is more consistent across API workloads, while the CMP 70HX is specialized enough to excel in Vulkan but falls behind in OpenCL.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context. The A2’s average score of 34,690 sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (34,561), 0.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541), 1% above the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355), and 1.4% above the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207). The CMP 70HX’s average of 30,476 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (30,490, 0% delta), and it leads the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433) by 0.1%, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095) by 1.3%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945) by 1.8%. These figures show the A2 competes in a higher-performance tier, while the CMP 70HX is closer to mid-range desktop cards.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Ampere architecture and use the same 8 nm process node from Samsung. The similarities end there. The A2 uses the GA107 chip, a smaller die measuring 200 mm² with 8,700 million transistors. That gives it a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The CMP 70HX uses the GA104 chip, a significantly larger die at 392 mm² with 17,400 million transistors, resulting in a density of 44.4 million per mm². The CMP 70HX carries roughly twice the silicon and twice the transistor count.

The memory subsystems are completely different. The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s. That is a 3x bandwidth advantage for the CMP 70HX, despite half the capacity. The A2’s memory clock is 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the CMP 70HX runs at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The higher effective speed and wider bus explain the large bandwidth gap.

Compute resources are also heavily skewed. The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The CMP 70HX has 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is exactly three times the shaders and TMUs, and double the ROPs. The ray tracing and tensor core counts follow the same pattern: the A2 has 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores, the CMP 70HX has 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores. The CMP 70HX’s raw throughput numbers reflect this: 10.71 TFLOPS FP32, 10.71 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), 167.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 89.28 GPixel/s pixel rate. The A2 produces 4.531 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), 70.80 GTexel/s, and 56.64 GPixel/s.

The clock behavior is notable. The A2 has a higher boost clock at 1770 MHz, with a base of 1440 MHz. The CMP 70HX runs lower clocks: 1365 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost. Even with fewer cores and lower clocks, the A2 manages to win the OpenCL test, which points to architectural efficiency or driver optimization. The CMP 70HX’s higher core count and bandwidth help it in Vulkan, despite the clock deficit.

The bus interface is another differentiator. The A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. That is a substantial interface downgrade for the CMP 70HX, which likely limits data transfer in some workloads, though bandwidth-bound compute tasks can still saturate local memory.

Where Each One Wins

The A2 wins clearly in OpenCL workloads. The 40.7% lead in that test is the largest gap anywhere in the data. That suggests the A2’s architecture, driver stack, or memory configuration handles OpenCL compute more efficiently than the CMP 70HX. The A2 also has double the memory capacity at 16 GB, which is a decisive advantage for workloads that need to hold large datasets on-card. Its smaller die and lower power draw (60 W TDP, with no power connectors required) make it a better fit for environments where space and cooling are constrained. The A2’s single-slot design and lack of display outputs are typical for a compute-only card, but they do mean it needs a host system for everything.

The CMP 70HX wins the Vulkan test by 5%, and the margin is smaller than the A2’s OpenCL victory, but it is still a recorded win. The CMP 70HX’s strengths are in memory bandwidth (608.3 GB/s vs 200.1 GB/s), raw compute throughput (10.71 TFLOPS vs 4.53 TFLOPS), and pixel/texture rates. For workloads that are bound by fill rate or memory bandwidth, the CMP 70HX is the stronger card. The dual-slot design and 1x 12-pin power connector indicate it is built for sustained compute loads, though its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a bottleneck for any host communication.

The Verdict

The data supports different picks depending on the workload. For users running OpenCL-based compute tasks, the A2 is the clear choice. It beats the CMP 70HX by 40.7% in that benchmark, has twice the memory capacity (16 GB vs 8 GB), and draws far less power (60 W TDP vs unspecified, but a 250 W suggested PSU vs 200 W). The A2’s higher boost clock (1770 MHz vs 1395 MHz) also helps it punch above its core count.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the CMP 70HX is the better option. It wins that specific test, and its massive bandwidth advantage (608.3 GB/s vs 200.1 GB/s) plus higher compute throughput (10.71 TFLOPS vs 4.53 TFLOPS) make it suitable for tasks that scale with raw memory and shader throughput. However, the 5% win is modest, and the CMP 70HX’s average score across all benchmarks is lower (30,476 vs 34,690), so it is not broadly faster.

If the choice is about a single GPU for general compute, the A2 is the stronger overall product. It has a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking (79th vs 75th), and its nearest rivals are higher-end cards (T1000, TITAN V, RTX A1000). The CMP 70HX’s nearest rivals are more mid-range (RX 6700, RX 6800, RTX 3070 Ti), confirming its lower overall tier. The only reason to pick the CMP 70HX is if the workload is Vulkan-heavy and memory bandwidth is the primary limiter.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has an average score of 34,690, while the NVIDIA CMP 70HX has 30,476. The A2 is 13.8% higher and sits in the 79th percentile, compared to the CMP 70HX’s 75th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the A2 scores 35,357 versus the CMP 70HX’s 25,135, a 40.7% difference. The Vulkan test gap is only 5%, with the CMP 70HX scoring 35,817 against the A2’s 34,023.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A:** The CMP 70HX has 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the A2’s 200.1 GB/s. This comes from a 256-bit bus and GDDR6X memory, versus the A2’s 128-bit bus and GDDR6.

Q: Are these cards comparable in size?

A:** No. The A2 is single-slot with no power connectors and a 60 W TDP. The CMP 70HX is dual-slot, requires a 1x 12-pin power connector, and has a 200 W suggested PSU. The CMP 70HX is also physically longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and taller at 112 mm (4.4 inches).

Q: Which GPU has a better interface for data transfer?

A:** The A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is a faster, more modern interface. The CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an older, lower-bandwidth connection.

Q: Do either have display outputs?

A:** Neither card has display outputs. Both are compute-only products, which is typical for a workstation accelerator and a mining-focused GPU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A2 | NVIDIA CMP 70HX |

|----------------|-----------|------------------|

| Chip | GA107 | GA104 |

| Process node | 8 nm | 8 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 17,400 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Base clock | 1440 MHz | 1365 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1770 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Memory size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 608.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 40 | 120 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT cores | 10 | 30 |

| Tensor cores | 40 | 120 |

| FP32 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 10.71 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.531 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.71 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 89.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 167.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 60 W | Not specified |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 267 mm (10.5 in) length, 112 mm (4.4 in) height |

The A2 and CMP 70HX share the same architecture, process node, and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). They both have no display outputs and are end-of-life products. The CMP 70HX has no recorded release date or predecessor/successor, while the A2 was released in November 2021, preceded by Quadro Turing and succeeded by Workstation Ada.