NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The data clearly separates these two NVIDIA cards, despite both being end-of-life products. The Quadro P6000 is the decisive performance winner, taking both head-to-head benchmarks and holding a higher average score, while the CMP 30HX is a more power-efficient and physically compact option that still trails significantly in compute output. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro P6000 is for compute-heavy professional workloads, while the CMP 30HX is a niche, limited-interface card that only makes sense where its specific power and size profile matters more than raw performance.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark results, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the superior performer. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 66,382 against the CMP 30HX’s 65,199, a 1.8% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in Vulkan, where the P6000 scores 73,590 versus 62,484, a 17.8% lead. Its average benchmark score of 69,986 places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the CMP 30HX’s average of 63,842 sits in the 89th percentile. The P6000 wins both head-to-head comparisons, with a total of 2 wins and 0 losses.

The CMP 30HX is not without merit. Its average score of 63,842 puts it in the same performance neighborhood as the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693), with deltaPct values of 0%, 0.1%, and 0.2%, respectively. However, the P6000’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, 0.2% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, -0.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, -1.2% delta), all of which are significantly higher-scoring cards. The P6000 also edges out the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, 1.4% delta), showing it competes with higher-tier mining cards.

Who should pick which? The data supports the Quadro P6000 for anyone needing maximum compute throughput, particularly in Vulkan-based workloads where its 17.8% lead is decisive. The CMP 30HX should only be chosen if the 125 W TDP and 229 mm length are critical constraints, as its performance deficit is substantial.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². In contrast, the CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 23.2M per mm².

The core configurations differ massively. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 raster operation units (ROPs). The CMP 30HX is far leaner, with 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The memory subsystems are also distinct: the P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

The feature sets show a major divergence in connectivity. The P6000 supports PCIe 3.0 x16 and has display outputs (1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a). The CMP 30HX is limited to PCIe 1.0 x4 and has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only device. Both share the same API support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying hardware capabilities differ sharply due to architecture and configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a narrow but clear victory for the Quadro P6000. Its score of 66,382 beats the CMP 30HX’s 65,199 by 1.8%. This small margin suggests that in OpenCL workloads, the CMP 30HX’s higher boost clock of 1785 MHz (versus 1645 MHz) and faster 14 Gbps effective memory speed help it close the gap against the P6000’s larger core count and wider memory bus. The P6000’s 432.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 336.0 GB/s is an advantage, but the CMP 30HX’s efficiency in this test is notable.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a completely different story. The P6000 scores 73,590, which is 17.8% higher than the CMP 30HX’s 62,484. This is the largest delta between the two cards and indicates that the P6000’s Pascal architecture handles Vulkan workloads far more effectively. The P6000’s FP32 throughput of 12.63 TFLOPS dwarfs the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS, and this compute advantage manifests clearly in Vulkan. The CMP 30HX does counter with superior FP16 performance at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the P6000’s 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), but this does not translate into a benchmark win.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the pattern. The P6000’s average of 69,986 is 9.6% higher than the CMP 30HX’s 63,842. The P6000’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile, scores 70,140, just 0.2% higher, indicating the P6000 is competitive with newer mobile workstation parts. The CMP 30HX’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, scores 64,212, which is 0.6% higher, showing the CMP 30HX sits at the lower end of its performance class.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69,986, which is significantly higher than the CMP 30HX’s average of 63,842.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The P6000 leads by 17.8% in Geekbench Vulkan, with a score of 73,590 versus 62,484 for the CMP 30HX.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX win any benchmark?

A: No. The CMP 30HX loses both head-to-head benchmarks, with the P6000 winning Geekbench OpenCL by 1.8% and Geekbench Vulkan by 17.8%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: Only the Quadro P6000 has display outputs, featuring 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The CMP 30HX has no outputs.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The P6000’s closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.2% higher), while the CMP 30HX’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (0% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins in compute-intensive scenarios. Its 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 394.8 GTexel/s texture rate give it a massive throughput advantage over the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS and 157.1 GTexel/s. The P6000 also has a higher pixel rate at 157.9 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the P6000 is the clear choice, as evidenced by its 17.8% lead. Its 24 GB of memory also makes it suitable for large datasets, whereas the CMP 30HX’s 6 GB is a hard limit.

The CMP 30HX wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. It has a 125 W TDP compared to the P6000’s 250 W, and its suggested PSU is 300 W versus 600 W. It is also shorter at 229 mm (9 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches), though both are dual-slot and share the same height of 111 mm. The CMP 30HX’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a severe bottleneck, but for compute tasks that do not require high host bandwidth, the lower power draw could be an advantage in dense multi-GPU setups.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every technical specification. The process node is 16 nm for the P6000 and 12 nm for the CMP 30HX. Transistor counts are 11,800 million versus 6,600 million, with die sizes of 471 mm² and 284 mm², respectively. The clock speeds differ: the P6000 has a base of 1506 MHz and boost of 1645 MHz, while the CMP 30HX has a base of 1530 MHz and boost of 1785 MHz. Memory clocks are 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) for the P6000 and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the CMP 30HX.

Memory size and type are major differentiators: 24 GB GDDR5X versus 6 GB GDDR6. Bus widths are 384-bit and 192-bit, with bandwidths of 432.8 GB/s and 336.0 GB/s. The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ (3,840/240/96 versus 1,408/88/48). Pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and FP16 all show the P6000’s compute superiority, except for FP16 where the CMP 30HX’s 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the P6000’s 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64). TDP differs at 250 W versus 125 W, and the power connectors are both 1x 8-pin, but the suggested PSU is 600 W versus 300 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 1.0 x4, and the display outputs are present only on the P6000. The release dates are 2016-09-30 for the P6000 and 2021-02-24 for the CMP 30HX.