NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between these two NVIDIA products is brief but decisive. The database records two shared tests, both in Geekbench, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 wins both outright. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX does not take a single head-to-head victory in the recorded data.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the CMP 30HX's 65,199. That is a delta of -69.6 percent for the CMP 30HX, meaning the RTX 4080 is more than three times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The gap is stark, and it reflects the fundamental difference in scale between the two parts.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX 4080 posts 263,779, while the CMP 30HX manages 62,484. The delta here is -76.3 percent, meaning the RTX 4080 delivers roughly four times the performance in this API. For any user prioritizing raw graphics or compute throughput, the RTX 4080 is the clear choice based on these measurements alone.

The CMP 30HX does hold an edge in one statistical category: its average benchmark score of 63,842 sits above the RTX 4080's 54,247. This is an artifact of the test sets involved. The CMP 30HX has only two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench entries, while the RTX 4080 carries ten results including several Passmark tests that drag its average down. The RTX 4080's percentile ranking of 86 versus the CMP 30HX's 89 tells a similar story: percentiles are computed relative to all GPUs in the database, and the CMP 30HX's narrow test profile inflates its standing.

Looking at nearest rivals, the CMP 30HX sits within 0.6 percent of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, which averages 64,212. The RTX 4080, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the RTX 4080 SUPER at a 0.1 percent delta, and it trails the AMD Radeon 8060S by 2.7 percent. These comparisons place the RTX 4080 in a much higher performance tier, despite its lower aggregate average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process, while the RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on TSMC's 5 nm node. That process shrink allows the RTX 4080 to pack 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The CMP 30HX, by contrast, contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, for a density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4080 has nearly seven times the transistor count on a die that is only about 33 percent larger.

Core counts follow the same trajectory. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That is roughly 6.9 times the shading units and 3.5 times the TMUs. The RTX 4080 also brings dedicated hardware the CMP 30HX lacks entirely: 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The CMP 30HX has neither, as it was designed for mining workloads rather than rendering or AI acceleration.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The CMP 30HX ships with 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4080 offers 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth and more than double the capacity. The RTX 4080 also runs its memory at a higher effective speed: 22.4 Gbps versus 14 Gbps for the CMP 30HX.

Clock speeds favor the RTX 4080 as well. Its base clock of 2205 MHz and boost clock of 2505 MHz compare with 1530 MHz and 1785 MHz on the CMP 30HX. This is not just a node advantage; it reflects a much more aggressive power envelope. The RTX 4080 carries a 320 W TDP, while the CMP 30HX is rated at 125 W. The RTX 4080 requires a 700 W suggested PSU and a 16-pin connector, whereas the CMP 30HX needs only a 300 W PSU and an 8-pin connector.

Output capability is another differentiator. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs whatsoever, a hallmark of its mining-oriented design. The RTX 4080 includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The CMP 30HX also runs on PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited interface, while the RTX 4080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The compute numbers tell the story of architectural efficiency. The RTX 4080 achieves 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, with a 1:1 ratio for FP16. The CMP 30HX delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 and 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16, but only at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is halved relative to FP32. Pixel rate on the RTX 4080 is 280.6 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 761.5 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. Every throughput metric favors the RTX 4080 by a wide margin.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 wins both head-to-head benchmarks with margins of 69.6 percent and 76.3 percent. It offers more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, and a modern 5 nm process. The CMP 30HX is an end-of-life mining GPU with no display outputs and a legacy Turing architecture.

For any task involving graphics rendering, compute workloads, or gaming, the RTX 4080 is the only rational choice from this data. Its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory and 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth provide headroom for large textures and datasets. Its 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores enable features the CMP 30HX cannot execute at all.

The CMP 30HX does have one niche advantage: lower power draw. Its 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it far less demanding on system power delivery. It is also physically smaller at 229 mm in length versus 310 mm for the RTX 4080. But these advantages are irrelevant for most users, especially since the CMP 30HX cannot output video and relies on a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface.

The RTX 4080 launched at 1,199 USD, while the CMP 30HX launched at 799 USD. Both are end-of-life products now. For anyone building a system today, the RTX 4080 delivers roughly three to four times the performance in the recorded benchmarks, and that performance gap is backed by every architectural metric in the database. The CMP 30HX should only be considered by someone with a very specific, low-power compute need that does not require display output.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has an average benchmark score of 63,842, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 averages 54,247. However, the RTX 4080 has ten recorded benchmarks versus only two for the CMP 30HX, which significantly affects the average.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 263,779 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 62,484 for the CMP 30HX, a delta of -76.3 percent for the CMP 30HX.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX support ray tracing?

A: No. The CMP 30HX has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 4080 includes 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can the CMP 30HX output video to a display?

A: No. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs. The RTX 4080 includes 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 4080 has a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm², versus 23.2 million per mm² for the CMP 30HX.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 wins in every measured performance category. It dominates the two shared benchmarks, offering 214,739 in OpenCL versus 65,199 and 263,779 in Vulkan versus 62,484. It has more than six times the shading units, more than three times the texture units, and more than double the ROPs. Its memory bandwidth of 716.8 GB/s is more than double the CMP 30HX's 336.0 GB/s. FP32 compute is 48.74 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS, a near tenfold advantage. FP16 compute is 48.74 TFLOPS versus 10.05 TFLOPS, a nearly fivefold advantage. Pixel rate is 280.6 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 761.5 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s.

The CMP 30HX wins only in efficiency-oriented metrics. Its 125 W TDP is less than half the RTX 4080's 320 W. Its 300 W suggested PSU is far lower than 700 W. Its physical footprint is smaller: 229 mm versus 310 mm in length, 111 mm versus 140 mm in height, and 35 mm versus 61 mm in width. It also uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the RTX 4080 requires a 16-pin connector.

For users with strict power or space constraints, the CMP 30HX offers a lower-draw alternative. But those users must accept no display output, a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, and a fraction of the compute performance. The RTX 4080 is the superior choice for any workload that can tolerate its larger size and higher power requirement. Given that the RTX 4080 also carries display outputs and modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores, the CMP 30HX's remaining advantages are narrow and situational. The benchmark data does not support choosing the CMP 30HX for general-purpose use.