NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX leads with an average score of 63842, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX trails at 51790. That is a substantial gap of roughly 23% in favor of the smaller card.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX have more raw compute horsepower despite losing in benchmarks?

A: Yes, the CMP 50HX lists 3584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs, with FP32 throughput rated at 11.07 TFLOPS. The CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with FP32 at 5.027 TFLOPS. The larger card is over twice as powerful on paper, yet the measured scores do not reflect that advantage.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX steps up to 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 560.0 GB/s. Both run at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Which card performs better in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The CMP 30HX wins decisively with a score of 62484 versus 47445 for the CMP 50HX, a delta of 31.7%. This is the largest single-test margin between the two.

Q: Are these cards similar in their physical design?

A: Both are dual-slot cards with a 35 mm width and no display outputs. The CMP 30HX measures 229 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the CMP 50HX is longer at 267 mm and slightly taller at 116 mm.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card relative to all GPUs in the database?

A: The CMP 30HX sits at the 89th percentile, while the CMP 50HX is at the 86th percentile. Despite the 50HX's larger silicon, it ranks three points lower in overall standing.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC's 12 nm process node and share the Turing architecture, but they are fundamentally different chips. The CMP 30HX uses the TU116 die, a compact 284 mm² slab with 6,600 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The CMP 50HX employs the TU102 die, a massive 754 mm² chip packing 18,600 million transistors, with a slightly higher density of 24.7M per mm². The die size difference is stark: the TU102 is nearly 2.7 times larger in area.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The CMP 50HX carries 3584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, while the CMP 30HX has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The 50HX also includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, whereas the 30HX has none of either. This makes the 50HX a far more feature-rich processor in terms of hardware blocks, though the mining-oriented CMP series does not use these for display or rendering.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The CMP 30HX runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz, while the CMP 50HX is slower at 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The smaller chip compensates for fewer cores with higher frequency, while the larger chip scales down its clocks, likely to manage thermals and power on a 250 W TDP. The 30HX's TDP is 125 W, half that of the 50HX.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the 50HX has 10 GB on a 320-bit bus. The bandwidth gap is significant: 336.0 GB/s versus 560.0 GB/s. Both use the same 14 Gbps effective memory speed, but the wider bus on the 50HX pushes far more data. API support also differs, with the 30HX at DirectX 12 (12_1) and the 50HX at DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), though neither card has display outputs, so this is largely academic for mining workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the CMP 30HX winning both available benchmark tests, and the margins are notable. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 30HX scores 65199 against the 50HX's 56135, a 16.1% advantage. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 62484 versus 47445, a 31.7% gap. The CMP 30HX wins both tests, for a total of 2 wins and 0 losses.

These results are counterintuitive given the hardware specs. The CMP 50HX has more than double the shading units and over 4.5 times the FP32 throughput, yet it loses by double-digit percentages. The data suggests that raw compute resources are not translating into benchmark performance. The 50HX's lower clock speeds, at 1350 MHz base versus 1530 MHz for the 30HX, may be a factor, but the disparity is too large to explain solely by frequency.

The OpenCL delta of 16.1% is substantial, but the Vulkan delta of 31.7% is severe. For a mining-focused card, the Vulkan result is particularly telling, as it may reflect driver inefficiencies or architectural bottlenecks in that specific API path. The 30HX's higher boost clock of 1785 MHz versus 1545 MHz could be a contributor, but the 50HX's massive core count should overwhelm that difference in compute-bound workloads.

The nearest rival data offers context. The CMP 30HX sits within 0.6% of AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 and within 0.2% of AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, with an average score of 63842. The CMP 50HX, at 51790, is 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT and 3.6% ahead of the RX Vega 64. This means the 50HX, despite its larger die, is competing with a lower tier of GPUs in actual performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification that matters. The chip is the most obvious difference: TU116 versus TU102. The die size ranges from 284 mm² to 754 mm², and transistor count jumps from 6,600 million to 18,600 million. Transistor density is similar at 23.2M versus 24.7M per mm², but the absolute silicon is far larger on the 50HX.

Clock speeds favor the 30HX: 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, versus 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. Memory capacity favors the 50HX: 10 GB versus 6 GB. Bus width moves from 192-bit to 320-bit, and bandwidth from 336.0 GB/s to 560.0 GB/s. The shading units go from 1408 to 3584, TMUs from 88 to 192, and ROPs from 48 to 80. The 50HX adds 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, while the 30HX has none.

Pixel rate and texture rate also scale with the larger chip: 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s for the 50HX, versus 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s for the 30HX. FP32 throughput nearly doubles from 5.027 TFLOPS to 11.07 TFLOPS, and FP16 doubles accordingly from 10.05 to 22.15 TFLOPS. Power draw jumps from 125 W to 250 W, and the power connector changes from 1x 8-pin to 2x 8-pin. The suggested PSU rises from 300 W to 600 W.

Physical dimensions reflect the larger PCB: 229 mm versus 267 mm in length, 111 mm versus 116 mm in height, with the same 35 mm width. Both use PCIe 1.0 x4, which is unusual and likely limits bandwidth for both cards. Release dates differ, with the 30HX launching on 2021-02-24 and the 50HX on 2021-06-23. The 30HX has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the 50HX has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The CMP 30HX wins in benchmark performance across both recorded tests. It also wins in efficiency: 125 W TDP versus 250 W, with better scores per watt. The data suggests the 30HX is the better choice for workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan performance, which are the only metrics measured. Its higher clock speeds and lower power draw make it an easier card to integrate into systems with smaller power supplies, as the suggested PSU is 300 W versus 600 W.

The CMP 50HX wins in raw hardware capacity. It has more memory, wider bus, more cores, and higher theoretical throughput. For tasks that scale with memory size or bandwidth, such as large dataset processing or certain compute kernels that fit in 10 GB, the 50HX has an advantage on paper. Its RT and tensor cores could be useful for specific workloads, though the mining-oriented design with no display outputs limits its applicability.

The benchmark data does not support the 50HX for performance. The 30HX beats it by 16.1% in OpenCL and 31.7% in Vulkan. The 50HX's only wins are in specification sheets, not in measured results. For a mining GPU, where the primary concern is hash rate or compute throughput, the recorded benchmarks are the relevant data, and they clearly favor the 30HX.

The 30HX also has a higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 86, and its average score of 63842 is well above the 50HX's 51790. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the 30HX competes with professional cards like the Radeon Pro Vega 56, while the 50HX hangs near the Radeon RX 6900 XT, a lower tier in this database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the better performing GPU in every measured benchmark. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests, has a higher average score, and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution. The 50HX's larger die, more cores, and higher bandwidth do not translate into better results, likely due to lower clock speeds and inefficiencies in the TU102 chip for these specific workloads.

The CMP 30HX is the right pick for anyone prioritizing measured compute performance, lower power draw, and simpler power requirements. Its 125 W TDP and single 8-pin connector make it far easier to deploy in mining rigs, and its benchmark scores are consistently higher. The 50HX offers more memory and bandwidth, which could matter for specific workloads, but the recorded data does not show any advantage in the tests available.

For mining operations that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the 30HX is the clear winner based on the database results. The 50HX may have theoretical advantages in memory capacity, but those are not reflected in the benchmark scores. The verdict from the data is simple: choose the CMP 30HX for better performance, or choose the CMP 50HX only if the larger memory pool and wider bus are absolutely necessary for a specific task, accepting the lower measured scores and higher power draw.