AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

# NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT: A Study in Contrasting Design Goals

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The RX 6800 XT wins both recorded head-to-head comparisons by massive margins, with a 61.9% advantage in OpenCL and a 54.3% lead in Vulkan. However, the CMP 30HX holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (89th versus 85th), which highlights how different benchmark suites and averaging methods can tell divergent stories. The CMP 30HX is a specialized mining product with no display outputs, while the RX 6800 XT is a full-featured gaming flagship with ray tracing support and a complete set of video outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT scores 171,304 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199. The RX 6800 XT leads by 61.9%.

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

A: The CMP 30HX has an average benchmark score of 63,842, while the RX 6800 XT averages 48,477 across its broader suite of tests.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX ranks in the 89th percentile, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT ranks in the 85th percentile.

Q: How much memory does each card feature?

A: The CMP 30HX comes with 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the RX 6800 XT offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX support ray tracing?

A: No. The CMP 30HX has no RT cores listed, while the RX 6800 XT includes 72 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The CMP 30HX has a 125 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The RX 6800 XT has a 300 W TDP with dual 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture at TSMC's 12 nm process, featuring 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT employs the Navi 21 chip based on RDNA 2.0 at TSMC's 7 nm node, packing 26,800 million transistors onto a 520 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm² for the CMP 30HX versus 51.5 million per mm² for the RX 6800 XT.

The CMP 30HX is fundamentally a mining-oriented product. It has no display outputs, uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, and lacks both RT cores and tensor cores. Its Turing architecture provides DirectX 12 (12_1) support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6800 XT, by contrast, is a complete RDNA 2.0 implementation with 72 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, and the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions. It also offers a PCIe 4.0 x16 connection and a full suite of display outputs including HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 1.4a, and USB Type-C.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The CMP 30HX runs 6 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6800 XT runs 16 GB of GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The shading resources also diverge: the CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the RX 6800 XT has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and its advantage is rooted in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 20.74 TFLOPS dwarfs the CMP 30HX's 5.027 TFLOPS. The RX 6800 XT also leads in pixel rate (288.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s) and texture rate (648.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s). For any workload that stresses general compute, graphics rendering, or modern API utilization, the RX 6800 XT is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX finds its niche in efficiency per watt. With a 125 W TDP versus the RX 6800 XT's 300 W, the CMP 30HX delivers its 63,842 average benchmark score at less than half the power draw. Additionally, its dual-slot 229 mm length makes it physically smaller than the RX 6800 XT's 267 mm length. For mining operations where power consumption and physical footprint matter more than absolute performance, the CMP 30HX has an argument, even though its raw scores are far lower.

The CMP 30HX also benefits from a simpler feature set. The lack of display outputs is a disadvantage for general users but irrelevant for dedicated mining rigs. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is sufficient for compute workloads that do not require high host-device bandwidth. The RX 6800 XT, meanwhile, demands a PCIe 4.0 x16 slot to reach its full potential.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node changes from 12 nm on the CMP 30HX to 7 nm on the RX 6800 XT. Transistor count jumps from 6,600 million to 26,800 million, and die size grows from 284 mm² to 520 mm². Transistor density nearly doubles from 23.2M per mm² to 51.5M per mm².

Clock speeds are higher on the RX 6800 XT: base clock of 1825 MHz versus 1530 MHz, boost clock of 2250 MHz versus 1785 MHz, and a game clock of 2015 MHz that the CMP 30HX does not have. Memory clock also rises from 1750 MHz to 2000 MHz, with effective speed increasing from 14 Gbps to 16 Gbps.

Memory capacity doubles from 6 GB to 16 GB, bus width expands from 192-bit to 256-bit, and bandwidth increases from 336.0 GB/s to 512.0 GB/s. Shading units grow from 1,408 to 4,608, TMUs from 88 to 288, and ROPs from 48 to 128. The RX 6800 XT adds 72 RT cores; the CMP 30HX has none.

Pixel rate rises from 85.68 GPixel/s to 288.0 GPixel/s, texture rate from 157.1 GTexel/s to 648.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 5.027 TFLOPS to 20.74 TFLOPS. TDP increases from 125 W to 300 W, power connectors from one 8-pin to two 8-pins, and suggested PSU from 300 W to 700 W. The bus interface changes from PCIe 1.0 x4 to PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs go from none to a full complement of HDMI, DisplayPort, and USB Type-C. Dimensions grow from 229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width to 267 mm length, 120 mm height, 50 mm width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the RX 6800 XT scoring 171,304 against the CMP 30HX's 65,199, a delta of 61.9% in favor of AMD. This gap is consistent with the theoretical compute difference: the RX 6800 XT's 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 is roughly four times the CMP 30HX's 5.027 TFLOPS. The OpenCL benchmark exercises general-purpose compute across the GPU's shading units, and the RX 6800 XT's 4,608 shading units versus 1,408 gives it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome.

The Geekbench Vulkan test follows a similar pattern. The RX 6800 XT scores 136,875, while the CMP 30HX scores 62,484, resulting in a 54.3% delta. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from higher memory bandwidth and more ROPs. The RX 6800 XT's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 128 ROPs allow it to feed the render pipeline more effectively than the CMP 30HX's 336.0 GB/s and 48 ROPs. The CMP 30HX's Turing architecture does support Vulkan 1.4, matching the RX 6800 XT's API version, but the raw hardware disparity is decisive.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The CMP 30HX averages 63,842 across its two recorded tests, while the RX 6800 XT averages 48,477 across eleven tests. This lower average for the RX 6800 XT is dragged down by its Passmark results, which include a DirectX 10 score of 155, DirectX 11 of 264, and DirectX 9 of 265. These legacy API tests are less favorable to RDNA 2.0's modern design. The CMP 30HX, with only OpenCL and Vulkan scores, avoids these legacy benchmarks entirely.

The percentile rankings reflect this discrepancy. The CMP 30HX sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6800 XT sits at the 85th percentile. This does not mean the CMP 30HX is the faster card; it means its limited benchmark suite places it higher relative to the broader GPU population. The RX 6800 XT's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (1.5% ahead), Intel Arc A550M (2.5% behind), and GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (3% behind), indicating that its average score of 48,477 is competitive with modern mid-range and upper-mid-range GPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the superior graphics processor by every performance metric recorded. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offers more than triple the FP32 compute, carries 16 GB of memory instead of 6 GB, and includes ray tracing support that the CMP 30HX entirely lacks. The RX 6800 XT's 61.9% OpenCL lead and 54.3% Vulkan lead are not marginal differences; they represent a different performance class entirely.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is a specialized product for a specific use case. Its 125 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its smaller physical footprint suits dense mining configurations. The lack of display outputs is irrelevant in that context, and its end-of-life production status suggests it was designed for a temporary market need. Its 89th percentile ranking is a statistical artifact of its narrow benchmark suite, not evidence of wider capability.

Buyers should select the RX 6800 XT for any general-purpose computing, gaming, content creation, or ray-traced workload. The 16 GB memory capacity provides future headroom for large assets and high-resolution textures. The full display output suite supports multi-monitor setups and VR systems. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface ensures compatibility with modern motherboards and fast data transfer.

The CMP 30HX should only be considered for dedicated compute workloads where power draw is the primary constraint and absolute performance is secondary. Its 125 W TDP and single 8-pin connector allow deployment in systems with modest power supplies. Its 229 mm length fits in compact chassis. But for anyone comparing these two cards for traditional graphics tasks, the RX 6800 XT is the unambiguous choice, and the recorded benchmark data supports that verdict without qualification.