NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 represent two completely different eras and purposes within NVIDIA’s lineup. The CMP 30HX is a Turing-based mining card from 2021, built without display outputs for a single task, while the RTX 5080 is a Blackwell 2.0 flagship for gaming and compute from 2025. Across the two shared benchmarks, the RTX 5080 dominates decisively, posting scores that are over three times higher in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The data shows a generational leap in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature set, making the comparison less about performance parity and more about architectural evolution.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 than the NVIDIA CMP 30HX in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 5080 scores 235,901 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 72.4% higher than the CMP 30HX’s score of 65,199. This represents a massive performance advantage in compute-heavy workloads.

Q: Does the RTX 5080 also lead in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: Yes, the RTX 5080 scores 255,450 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the CMP 30HX scores 62,484. The RTX 5080 leads by 75.5%, an even larger margin than in OpenCL.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between these two cards?

A: The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5080 comes with 16 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s, nearly three times the bandwidth.

Q: Are there any workloads where the CMP 30HX could be competitive?

A: Based on the benchmark data, no. The CMP 30HX wins zero head-to-head tests against the RTX 5080. Its only benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and it loses both by substantial margins.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of manufacturing process?

A: The CMP 30HX uses a 12 nm TSMC process with 6,600 million transistors, while the RTX 5080 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 45,600 million transistors. The newer process allows for a much higher transistor density of 120.6M per mm² versus 23.2M per mm².

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The CMP 30HX is marked as end-of-life, having been released on 2021-02-24. The RTX 5080 is active, with a release date of 2025-01-29, and it has a successor listed as GeForce 60.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, reflecting a shift from a specialized mining product to a full-featured consumer flagship. The CMP 30HX is based on the TU116 chip using the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm TSMC process. It packs 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The RTX 5080, in contrast, uses the GB203 chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. It contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, achieving a density of 120.6M per mm², which is over five times higher.

The RTX 5080 introduces dedicated hardware that the CMP 30HX completely lacks: 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores. These features enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-driven workloads, which are absent from the Turing mining card. The shading unit count also differs radically, with the RTX 5080 offering 10,752 shading units versus 1,408 on the CMP 30HX. Texture mapping units (TMUs) and render output units (ROPs) scale accordingly: 336 TMUs and 112 ROPs on the RTX 5080, compared to 88 TMUs and 48 ROPs on the CMP 30HX.

The memory subsystem is another major architectural divergence. The CMP 30HX uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the RTX 5080 uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus. This results in a bandwidth difference from 336.0 GB/s to 960.0 GB/s. The API support also differs: the CMP 30HX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 5080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark results, the CMP 30HX has no winning scenarios against the RTX 5080. The CMP 30HX wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. Its design as a mining card with no display outputs means it was never intended for interactive or graphics-oriented tasks. The RTX 5080, on the other hand, wins both available benchmarks by overwhelming margins, making it the clear choice for any compute, gaming, or professional workload.

In terms of use-case split, the CMP 30HX’s only potential advantage lies in its lower power profile. It has a TDP of 125 W and requires a 300 W power supply, versus 360 W and 750 W for the RTX 5080. For a dedicated mining rig where power efficiency is critical, the older card might have been preferable, but that is not a scenario supported by the benchmark data. The RTX 5080’s performance in Geekbench OpenCL (235,901) and Vulkan (255,450) makes it superior for any application that leverages those APIs, including rendering, simulation, and modern gaming. The CMP 30HX’s average benchmark score is 63,842, which places it at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, but that is still far below the RTX 5080’s performance level.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two cards differ are extensive. The process node jumps from 12 nm to 5 nm, and the transistor count from 6,600 million to 45,600 million. The die size grows from 284 mm² to 378 mm². Base clock speeds increase from 1530 MHz to 2295 MHz, and boost clocks from 1785 MHz to 2617 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the CMP 30HX versus 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective) on the RTX 5080.

Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all change: 6 GB GDDR6 on 192-bit with 336.0 GB/s becomes 16 GB GDDR7 on 256-bit with 960.0 GB/s. The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs increase from 1,408 / 88 / 48 to 10,752 / 336 / 112. The RTX 5080 adds 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, which are absent on the CMP 30HX. Pixel rate rises from 85.68 GPixel/s to 293.1 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 157.1 GTexel/s to 879.3 GTexel/s. FP32 compute jumps from 5.027 TFLOPS to 56.28 TFLOPS, and FP16 from 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) to 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power requirements differ significantly: TDP goes from 125 W to 360 W, and the suggested PSU from 300 W to 750 W. The power connector changes from 1x 8-pin to 1x 16-pin. The bus interface shifts from PCIe 1.0 x4 to PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs go from none to 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. Physical dimensions expand from 229 mm / 9 inches in length to 304 mm / 12 inches, and from 111 mm / 4.4 inches to 137 mm / 5.4 inches in height. The width also increases from 35 mm / 1.4 inches to 40 mm / 1.6 inches.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two benchmark tests, and the RTX 5080 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 30HX scores 65,199, while the RTX 5080 scores 235,901. The delta percentage is -72.4% from the perspective of the CMP 30HX, meaning the RTX 5080 is roughly 3.6 times faster. This is a decisive victory in a compute-heavy API that stresses raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The CMP 30HX scores 62,484, and the RTX 5080 scores 255,450. The delta percentage is -75.5%, which translates to the RTX 5080 being over four times faster. Vulkan benchmarks often reflect driver efficiency and architectural strengths in draw call handling and GPU command processing, and the Blackwell architecture appears to excel here. The RTX 5080’s FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS is over 11 times that of the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS, which directly contributes to these results.

The CMP 30HX’s average benchmark score of 63,842 places it near competitors like the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830) and AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775), according to the nearestRivals data. The RTX 5080, despite its higher raw performance, has an average benchmark score of 56,083, which sits near the AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757) and AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698). This discrepancy is due to the fact that the RTX 5080’s benchmark suite includes many lower-scoring tests like PassMark DirectX 9 (389) and DirectX 10 (208), which drag down its average. In the two shared tests, however, the RTX 5080 is overwhelmingly superior, demonstrating that the CMP 30HX cannot compete in any modern workload that uses these APIs.