NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile and NVIDIA CMP 30HX occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape. The A4500 Mobile is a professional mobile workstation part built on the Ampere architecture, while the CMP 30HX is a desktop mining card based on Turing. The database records an average benchmark score of 91,134 for the A4500 Mobile, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all GPUs. The CMP 30HX averages 63,842, sitting at the 89th percentile. These figures already hint at a substantial performance gap, but the details of where and how each part wins or loses matter more than the headline numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, both go to the RTX A4500 Mobile. In the OpenCL test, the A4500 Mobile scores 105,307 against 65,199 for the CMP 30HX. That is a delta of 61.5% in favor of the mobile part. To put that in context, the A4500 Mobile’s nearest rivals in the database include the desktop RTX A4500 at 91,671 (0.6% behind the mobile version) and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 at 92,466 (1.4% behind). The CMP 30HX, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (no delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.1% behind). The 61.5% OpenCL advantage is not a marginal win; it is a dominant one.

The Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive gap. The A4500 Mobile scores 76,960, while the CMP 30HX scores 62,484, a delta of 23.2%. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose raw hardware throughput more directly, but even there the A4500 Mobile’s larger shader array and faster memory subsystem carry it forward. The CMP 30HX’s Vulkan score is only 4.2% below its OpenCL score, whereas the A4500 Mobile drops by 26.9% from OpenCL to Vulkan. This suggests the A4500 Mobile is particularly strong in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the CMP 30HX is more consistent across the two APIs, though at a much lower absolute level.

The overall win tally is 2 for the A4500 Mobile, 0 for the CMP 30HX. No benchmark in the database shows the CMP 30HX ahead. The closest the CMP 30HX comes to any rival is its near-tie with the RX 9060 XT LP and RX 7600M, all within 0.1% of each other. The A4500 Mobile, by contrast, leads its nearest recorded rival by 4.2% over the Quadro GP100 and 4.6% over the Radeon PRO W7600, while trailing the desktop RTX A4500 by just 0.6% and the Instinct MI60 by 1.4%. In other words, the mobile part essentially matches a desktop professional card, while the mining card trades blows with mainstream mobile and workstation GPUs from AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4500 Mobile is the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 17.66 TFLOPS dwarfs the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 3.5. The texture rate tells a similar story: 276.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s, a 75.7% advantage. Pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s, a 68.1% lead. These are not subtle differences. Any application that rasterizes, shades, or runs general-purpose compute will see the A4500 Mobile pull far ahead.

The CMP 30HX has no recorded benchmark win, so its “wins” are contextual rather than measured. It is a dual-slot card with a 125 W TDP, versus the A4500 Mobile’s 140 W TDP. The CMP 30HX also uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which is unusual but irrelevant for its intended mining role, since mining workloads do not rely on host bandwidth. The card has no display outputs, confirming it was never meant for interactive use. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus delivers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is ample for mining algorithms but small for professional rendering or AI inference. The A4500 Mobile offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s. That memory capacity and bandwidth enable large datasets, high-resolution textures, and bigger batch sizes in machine learning. For a workstation user, the A4500 Mobile is the only sensible option. For a miner running a hashing workload, the CMP 30HX’s lower TDP and simpler power requirements (1x 8-pin connector) might be acceptable, but the database shows no performance metric where it beats the A4500 Mobile.

The A4500 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the CMP 30HX only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The 12_2 feature level includes mesh shaders, variable-rate shading, and other modern rendering features. The CMP 30HX lacks hardware ray tracing cores and tensor cores entirely, as the database records null values for those. The A4500 Mobile has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. For any workload involving ray tracing, DLSS-style upscaling, or AI inference, the CMP 30HX is not just slower, it is incapable of those tasks. The A4500 Mobile’s FP16 performance is 17.66 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not sacrifice precision for speed. The CMP 30HX’s FP16 is 10.05 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, which means it achieves higher FP16 throughput only by halving the effective precision per operation. For scientific computing or deep learning, the A4500 Mobile’s 1:1 FP16 is far more useful.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile records an average score of 91,134, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX averages 63,842. The A4500 Mobile sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the CMP 30HX is in the 89th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The A4500 Mobile scores 105,307 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 65,199 for the CMP 30HX. That is a 61.5% higher score, the largest delta recorded between the two cards.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX win any benchmark?

A: No. Across the two recorded tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the A4500 Mobile wins both. The CMP 30HX’s closest recorded rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, which matches its average score exactly.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s. The A4500 Mobile also runs its memory at 16 Gbps effective, versus 14 Gbps for the CMP 30HX.

Q: Are there any architectural features the CMP 30HX lacks?

A: Yes. The CMP 30HX has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the A4500 Mobile has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. The A4500 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the CMP 30HX is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The A4500 Mobile has a TDP of 140 W, while the CMP 30HX has a TDP of 125 W. The CMP 30HX requires a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply, while the A4500 Mobile uses no external power connectors, as it is a mobile part.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The A4500 Mobile uses the GA104 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. The CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip on TSMC’s 12 nm process, with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Transistor density is 44.4 million per mm² for the A4500 Mobile versus 23.2 million per mm² for the CMP 30HX. The A4500 Mobile’s base clock is 930 MHz and boost clock is 1500 MHz. The CMP 30HX runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz. The higher clocks on the CMP 30HX do not compensate for the A4500 Mobile’s much larger shader count.

The A4500 Mobile has 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. That is a 4.2x difference in shading units, a 2.1x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. The A4500 Mobile also has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, while the CMP 30HX has none. Memory size, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the A4500 Mobile, as detailed above. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A4500 Mobile versus PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 30HX. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the A4500 Mobile, while the CMP 30HX has no outputs at all. The CMP 30HX is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The A4500 Mobile’s dimensions are not recorded. The CMP 30HX has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the A4500 Mobile has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The A4500 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture, the same generation that powers NVIDIA’s RTX 30-series desktop cards. It uses Samsung’s 8 nm process, which allows for a high transistor count of 17,400 million. The chip is GA104, a mid-to-high-end Ampere die. The memory subsystem is GDDR6 with a 256-bit interface, and the card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, meaning it includes hardware ray tracing and tensor cores. The FP32 and FP16 rates are identical at 17.66 TFLOPS, a hallmark of Ampere’s compute design where FP16 does not require a separate path.

The CMP 30HX is based on the Turing architecture, NVIDIA’s previous generation, and uses the TU116 chip fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. Turing introduced ray tracing and tensor cores on higher-end chips like TU102 and TU104, but TU116, which powers the GTX 1660 series, omits those units. The database confirms null RT and tensor core counts for the CMP 30HX. Its FP16 rate of 10.05 TFLOPS is achieved at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles FP16 throughput by using a different precision path. That is less efficient than the A4500 Mobile’s 1:1 implementation for workloads that need FP16 accuracy.

The CMP 30HX’s generation is listed as “Mining GPUs,” and its design reflects that. It has no display outputs, a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, and a power connector arrangement typical of desktop cards. The A4500 Mobile is a mobile workstation part, with no power connectors and display outputs that depend on the host laptop. Its production status is end-of-life for both cards, but the A4500 Mobile was released on March 21, 2022, while the CMP 30HX came earlier on February 24, 2021. The A4500 Mobile’s predecessor is the Quadro Turing-M, and its successor is Ada-MW. The CMP 30HX has no recorded predecessor or successor, reflecting its niche status as a mining-only product.

The architecture gap explains the benchmark results. The A4500 Mobile has 4.2x the shading units, 2.1x the texture units, 2x the ROPs, and 2.7x the memory bandwidth. It also supports modern rendering features that the CMP 30HX cannot access. The only area where the CMP 30HX holds an advantage is power draw, 125 W versus 140 W, and clock speeds, which are higher but do not overcome the massive shader deficit. The data is unambiguous: the A4500 Mobile is a far more capable GPU in every recorded metric, and the CMP 30HX is a specialized product that performs best in a narrow mining context that the database does not measure.