NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the NVIDIA RTX A2000 across the two shared benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67,695 points against the CMP 30HX's 65,199 points, a difference of 3.7 percent. This is not a dramatic gap, but it is consistent with the architectural positioning of the two cards. The Vulkan test tells a similar story with a wider margin: the RTX A2000 reaches 69,089 points while the CMP 30HX manages 62,484 points, putting the A2000 ahead by 9.6 percent. For a workload that leans on modern API efficiency, that is a substantial lead.

The CMP 30HX wins none of the head-to-head comparisons. Its strongest result is the OpenCL score, where the 3.7 percent deficit means it trails by roughly 2,500 points. In Vulkan, the gap nearly triples to about 6,600 points. The data does not suggest the CMP 30HX is a weak card in absolute terms, its average benchmark score of 63,842 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database, but it is consistently behind the RTX A2000 in both measured APIs.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The CMP 30HX sits in a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP averages 63,830 (a 0 percent delta), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M averages 63,775 (0.1 percent ahead of the CMP), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 averages 63,693 (0.2 percent ahead). Only the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, at 64,212, edges out the CMP by a negative delta of 0.6 percent, meaning the CMP is actually 0.6 percent behind that card. The CMP 30HX is essentially neck-and-neck with a wide range of mid-range and professional GPUs.

The RTX A2000, by contrast, shows a more scattered rival profile. Its average benchmark score of 46,043 is dragged down by the fact that it lacks a 3DMark Steel Nomad score in its history, a test where it records 1,345 points. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (0.2 percent ahead of the A2000), the Intel Arc A730M at 45,592 (1 percent ahead), and two trailing cards: the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 and the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614, both sitting 1.2 percent behind the A2000. This cluster is far less dense than the CMP's, but it confirms the A2000 holds its own against a mix of desktop and mobile parts.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the RTX A2000 wins both matchups, with its Vulkan advantage being particularly pronounced. The CMP 30HX is not embarrassed by the comparison, but it is clearly the slower card in every shared benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU116 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA106 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process shrink alone is significant: the A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The CMP 30HX, meanwhile, houses 6,600 million transistors on a larger 284 mm² die, giving it a density of just 23.2 million per square millimeter. The A2000 crams nearly twice the transistor density into a slightly smaller package.

Core counts tell the rest of the compute story. The RTX A2000 features 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and the same 48 ROPs. The A2000 has more than double the shading units, and its TMU count is higher as well. This explains the raw compute advantage: the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the CMP 30HX manages 5.027 TFLOPS. The gap is roughly 59 percent in favor of the A2000.

The RTX A2000 also brings dedicated hardware that the CMP 30HX lacks entirely: 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The CMP 30HX has no RT cores and no tensor cores listed. That is a defining architectural difference. The A2000 is a full Ampere workstation GPU, capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inferencing, while the CMP 30HX is a stripped-down mining part with none of those features. The API support reflects this: the A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the CMP 30HX is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock behavior is another divergence. The CMP 30HX runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz. The RTX A2000 has a much lower base clock of 562 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000 wins on compute throughput because of its massive shader count advantage. The CMP's higher clocks help it close the gap in some operations, but not enough to overcome the core deficit.

Memory configurations are similar on the surface: both cards have 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The CMP 30HX runs its memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The RTX A2000 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 288.0 GB/s. The CMP actually has higher memory bandwidth, a 16.7 percent advantage. That is notable, but it does not translate into a win in the benchmark results. The A2000's compute advantage outweighs its bandwidth deficit.

The CMP 30HX draws 125 W with a suggested 300 W PSU, while the RTX A2000 sips just 70 W with a suggested 250 W PSU. That efficiency gap is a direct result of the 8 nm process and the Ampere architecture. The CMP requires an 8-pin power connector; the A2000 has no power connectors at all. The physical dimensions differ too: the CMP is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, while the A2000 is a compact 167 mm by 69 mm. The A2000 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the CMP 30HX has no display outputs whatsoever, a clear sign of its mining-only purpose.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared benchmark tests?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins both head-to-head tests. It leads by 3.7 percent in Geekbench OpenCL and by 9.6 percent in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX have any advantage in memory performance?

A: Yes. The CMP 30HX has a memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, compared to the RTX A2000's 288.0 GB/s. Both cards have 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Why does the RTX A2000 have higher compute performance despite lower clocks?

A: The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units versus the CMP 30HX's 1,408. That shader count advantage overcomes the A2000's lower boost clock of 1200 MHz versus the CMP's 1785 MHz, yielding 7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX support ray tracing?

A: No. The CMP 30HX has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A2000 includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The CMP 30HX is rated at 125 W with a suggested 300 W PSU, while the RTX A2000 is rated at 70 W with a suggested 250 W PSU. The A2000 also requires no power connectors.

Q: Can either card be used for display output?

A: Only the RTX A2000. It offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The CMP 30HX has no display outputs at all.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most buyers. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is simply the better GPU for compute workloads that benefit from modern architecture features. It wins both shared benchmarks, delivers higher FP32 throughput, includes ray tracing and tensor cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and does all of that while drawing 55 W less power. The 70 W TDP is remarkably low, and the card needs no external power connector, which makes it far easier to integrate into compact systems. The RTX A2000 launch MSRP was 449 USD.

The CMP 30HX is a specialized part. Its higher memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s is a genuine asset for memory-bound tasks, and its higher clock speeds suggest it can be competitive in certain throughput scenarios, but the benchmark results do not show any scenario where it overtakes the A2000. The 3.7 percent OpenCL gap is small enough that real-world differences would be minor in that specific API, but the 9.6 percent Vulkan deficit is harder to ignore.

For a workstation or professional user who needs display outputs, the CMP 30HX is automatically disqualified; it has none. For a user who only cares about raw compute in a headless configuration and is willing to tolerate a 125 W TDP and an 8-pin connector, the CMP 30HX remains a viable option, but it is not the faster one. The RTX A2000 wins on compute, features, efficiency, and flexibility. The CMP 30HX wins only on memory bandwidth and raw clock speed, neither of which translates to a benchmark victory. The RTX A2000 is the recommended pick for anyone who can use its features, and even for those who cannot, it is still the faster card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA CMP 30HX | NVIDIA RTX A2000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 88 | 104 |

| RT Cores | None | 26 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 104 |

| Pixel Rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.027 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 70 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Dimensions | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm | 167 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2021-02-24 | 2021-08-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 799 USD | 449 USD |