AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX and AMD Radeon Pro W6600M are evenly matched in overall standing, both sitting at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, yet they achieve that status through starkly different strengths. The data shows a split decision: the CMP 30HX dominates in OpenCL compute with a 16.1% lead, while the W6600M counters with a 7.6% advantage in Vulkan performance, making the choice between them entirely dependent on workload priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 against the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's 56,140. That is a 16.1% margin, a substantial gap that positions the CMP 30HX as the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL. This result is consistent with the CMP 30HX's overall average benchmark score of 63,842, which is 1,946 points higher than the W6600M's 61,896 average.

However, the tables turn completely in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 67,652, outpacing the NVIDIA CMP 30HX's 62,484 by 7.6%. This is a significant reversal, showing that the W6600M's architecture is better suited to modern graphics APIs and gaming-style workloads. The deltaPct of -7.6 in the data indicates that the CMP 30HX is behind in this discipline, and the margin is large enough to be a deciding factor for users who prioritize Vulkan-based applications.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the CMP 30HX's average score of 63,842 places it nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830, deltaPct 0) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775, deltaPct 0.1). It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693, deltaPct 0.2) but trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212, deltaPct -0.6). For the W6600M, its average of 61,896 is slightly below the AMD Radeon 8050S (62,108, deltaPct -0.3) but comfortably ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, deltaPct 2.6) and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, deltaPct 2.6), with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, deltaPct 2.9) further back.

The head-to-head record is a perfect 1-1 split, with each card winning one benchmark. This is not a case of one card being universally faster; rather, it is a tale of two different compute philosophies. The CMP 30HX wins the compute-heavy OpenCL test decisively, while the W6600M wins the graphics-oriented Vulkan test by a smaller but still meaningful margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has a higher average benchmark score of 63,842, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's 61,896, a difference of 1,946 points.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 versus the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's 56,140, giving the CMP 30HX a 16.1% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M win any benchmark against the NVIDIA CMP 30HX?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the W6600M scores 67,652 compared to the CMP 30HX's 62,484, a 7.6% lead for the AMD card.

Q: How does the NVIDIA CMP 30HX compare to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP?

A: The CMP 30HX has an average score of 63,842, while the RX 9060 XT LP scores 63,830, resulting in a deltaPct of 0, indicating they are statistically tied.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M relative to all GPUs?

A: The W6600M sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, the same percentile as the NVIDIA CMP 30HX.

Q: Which card has a higher score in the Vulkan test compared to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's Vulkan score of 67,652 is its strongest benchmark result, and its average of 61,896 is 2.6% higher than both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This older node results in a die size of 284 mm² containing 6,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M employs the Navi 23 chip with the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a much more advanced 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This allows AMD to pack 11,060 million transistors into a smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 46.7M per mm².

The compute configurations differ substantially as well. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The W6600M, meanwhile, has more of everything: 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Critically, the W6600M also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which are entirely absent from the CMP 30HX. Neither card has tensor cores.

Clock speeds show a different strategy. The NVIDIA card has a higher base clock at 1,530 MHz but a lower boost clock at 1,785 MHz. The AMD card starts lower at 1,224 MHz base but boosts much higher to 2,034 MHz. This higher boost clock, combined with the larger shader count, explains why the W6600M achieves higher theoretical throughput: 7.290 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.027 TFLOPS for the CMP 30HX, and 130.2 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 85.68 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors AMD at 227.8 GTexel/s against NVIDIA's 157.1 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 but on a narrower 128-bit bus, resulting in lower bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the NVIDIA card only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a generational feature gap.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict based on workload type. For pure compute performance in OpenCL environments, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the superior choice. Its 16.1% lead in that benchmark is decisive and cannot be ignored. It also has a higher average benchmark score overall (63,842 vs. 61,896), suggesting that in mixed or compute-dominated workloads, it will deliver more consistent performance.

However, for graphics-centric tasks that rely on Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is the better pick. Its 7.6% advantage in that test, combined with its higher pixel rate (130.2 GPixel/s vs. 85.68 GPixel/s) and the presence of ray tracing cores, makes it more future-proof for modern graphics APIs. The W6600M also offers more memory (8 GB vs. 6 GB), which is beneficial for larger textures or datasets, even if the bandwidth is lower.

The CMP 30HX is a mining-specific product with no display outputs, whereas the W6600M is a mobile workstation card with portable device-dependent outputs. This is not a subtle difference; the CMP 30HX cannot drive a display at all, making it unsuitable for any interactive or visual task. The W6600M, being a Radeon Pro Mobile product, is designed for laptops and portable workstations.

Neither card wins outright. The verdict depends on whether the user prioritizes raw OpenCL compute (choose NVIDIA) or Vulkan graphics and modern features (choose AMD). For a pure compute server, the CMP 30HX's higher average score and OpenCL dominance give it the edge. For a mobile workstation running graphics applications, the W6600M is the only viable option given its display capabilities and superior Vulkan performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is a key difference: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses 12 nm, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses 7 nm. This leads to different die sizes (284 mm² for NVIDIA vs. 237 mm² for AMD) and transistor counts (6,600 million vs. 11,060 million). The transistor density is nearly double on the AMD card: 46.7M per mm² versus 23.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The CMP 30HX has a base clock of 1,530 MHz and a boost of 1,785 MHz. The W6600M has a lower base of 1,224 MHz but a higher boost of 2,034 MHz. Both have the same memory clock of 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configurations are distinct: the CMP 30HX has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus (336.0 GB/s bandwidth), while the W6600M has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus (224.0 GB/s bandwidth). The compute units favor AMD: 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus NVIDIA's 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The W6600M has 28 ray tracing cores; the CMP 30HX has none. Neither has tensor cores.

Power and physical characteristics are also different. The CMP 30HX has a TDP of 125 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, and is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length. The W6600M has a lower TDP of 90 W, no power connectors, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor for portable devices. The bus interface differs: the CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, while the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs, while the W6600M's outputs are portable device dependent. The CMP 30HX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX wins in pure compute applications that leverage OpenCL. Its 16.1% lead in that benchmark is its strongest argument, and its higher average score of 63,842 makes it the better all-rounder for non-graphics workloads. It also offers higher memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s vs. 224.0 GB/s), which benefits memory-bandwidth-bound compute tasks. The CMP 30HX is the clear pick for headless compute servers or mining rigs where display output is irrelevant and OpenCL performance is paramount.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M wins in graphics and modern API workloads. Its 7.6% lead in Vulkan is significant, and its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, along with 28 ray tracing cores, gives it a feature set that the CMP 30HX simply lacks. The W6600M also has higher theoretical fill rates (130.2 GPixel/s and 227.8 GTexel/s) and more memory (8 GB vs. 6 GB), making it better suited for texture-heavy applications or larger datasets. As a mobile IGP with display outputs, it is the only choice for portable workstations. The W6600M also consumes less power (90 W vs. 125 W), which is critical for battery-powered devices.

In summary, the CMP 30HX wins on compute density and memory bandwidth, while the W6600M wins on graphics features, pixel throughput, and portability. The choice is not about which is faster overall; it is about which environment the card will operate in.