NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX. Across the two benchmark tests in the database, the RTX A5500 Mobile wins both, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124,287 points against 65,199 for the CMP 30HX. That is a delta of 90.6%, meaning the A5500 Mobile delivers nearly double the compute throughput in this workload. For context, the A5500 Mobile's average benchmark score across all tests sits at 113,944, while the CMP 30HX averages 63,842. The OpenCL result alone puts the A5500 Mobile in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the CMP 30HX sits in the 89th percentile. The A5500 Mobile's closest rival by average score is the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395, just 0.4% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088, which is 2.7% ahead. The A5500 Mobile also leads the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110,725) by 2.9% in average score. The CMP 30HX, meanwhile, trades blows with a cluster of AMD cards: the Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830) is essentially tied at 0% delta, the RX 7600M (63,775) is 0.1% behind, and the Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693) trails by 0.2%. The only rival that edges out the CMP 30HX in this group is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 at 64,212, which is 0.6% higher.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead narrows but remains commanding. The RTX A5500 Mobile scores 103,601 versus 62,484 for the CMP 30HX, a delta of 65.8%. Vulkan tends to be a more balanced API for GPUs, yet the A5500 Mobile still finishes with a roughly two-thirds performance advantage. The A5500 Mobile's Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL result, which is typical for many NVIDIA parts, but the CMP 30HX shows a similar pattern, dropping from 65,199 to 62,484. The relative gap, however, stays firmly in favor of the A5500 Mobile.

What these numbers reveal is that the RTX A5500 Mobile is not merely faster; it is in a different performance class. The CMP 30HX was designed for a niche workload, and its benchmark results reflect that positioning. The A5500 Mobile, despite being a mobile part, posts scores that rival or exceed desktop workstation GPUs from the same generation. The 90.6% lead in OpenCL is the single largest head-to-head margin in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 113,944, which places it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX averages 63,842, placing it in the 89th percentile. The A5500 Mobile is roughly 78% higher by average score.

Q: How does the RTX A5500 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The A5500 Mobile's average score is 0.4% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395), 2.7% below the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088), and 2.9% above the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110,725). It also trails the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393) by 2.9%.

Q: What is the CMP 30HX's closest competitor in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP has an average score of 63,830, which is a 0% delta from the CMP 30HX's 63,842. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775) is 0.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693) is 0.2% behind. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212) is 0.6% ahead.

Q: Does the CMP 30HX win any benchmark test?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX A5500 Mobile wins both, with 90.6% and 65.8% deltas respectively. The CMP 30HX records zero wins.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile was released on 2022-03-21, while the CMP 30HX came earlier, on 2021-02-24. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the CMP 30HX?

A: The launch MSRP of the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is 799 USD. The RTX A5500 Mobile has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and are built on different process nodes. The RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 22,000 million transistors on a 496 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per mm². The CMP 30HX, by contrast, uses the TU116 chip, based on the older Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a density of 23.2 million per mm². The A5500 Mobile has more than three times the transistor count and a die that is roughly 75% larger.

The shading resources differ enormously. The A5500 Mobile has 7,424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. That is a 5.3x difference in shading units and a 2.6x difference in TMUs. The A5500 Mobile's pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s for the CMP 30HX, and its texture rate is 348.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration also splits the two. The A5500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s. The memory clock is higher on the A5500 Mobile: 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, versus 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective on the CMP 30HX.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The CMP 30HX runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz, notably higher than the A5500 Mobile's 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. This is typical for a lower-power, smaller chip: the CMP 30HX compensates for fewer cores with higher clocks, but the raw throughput still cannot match the A5500 Mobile's massive shader array.

The FP32 compute figures make the gap clear. The A5500 Mobile delivers 22.27 TFLOPS, while the CMP 30HX delivers 5.027 TFLOPS. In FP16, the A5500 Mobile again shows 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the CMP 30HX reaches 10.05 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio. The A5500 Mobile is roughly 4.4x faster in FP32.

API support differs as well. The A5500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 30HX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A5500 Mobile's 12_2 feature level includes hardware ray tracing support, which the CMP 30HX lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is the superior GPU in every measured benchmark. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 90.6% and Geekbench Vulkan by 65.8%. Its average benchmark score of 113,944 places it in the 94th percentile, while the CMP 30HX sits at 63,842 and the 89th percentile. If you need compute performance for workstation or professional workloads, the A5500 Mobile is the only choice between these two.

The CMP 30HX, on the other hand, is a specialized mining part with no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface. It was built for a single purpose, and its benchmark results reflect that narrow design. It is not a general-purpose GPU. It lacks ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Its only advantage is a lower TDP of 125 W versus 165 W, and a smaller physical footprint (229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width, dual-slot). But for any application that uses the GPU for rendering, compute, or graphics, the A5500 Mobile's 22.27 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 16 GB of VRAM make it the clear winner.

The nearest rival data reinforces the verdict. The A5500 Mobile trades blows with desktop workstation cards like the Tesla V100 SXM2 and RTX 4000 SFF Ada, while the CMP 30HX sits alongside mid-range AMD parts. The CMP 30HX's launch MSRP was 799 USD, but that does not change its performance profile. The A5500 Mobile is in a different league.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. Here are the key distinctions:

• Chip: GA103 (A5500 Mobile) versus TU116 (CMP 30HX)
• Architecture: Ampere versus Turing
• Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) versus 12 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 22,000 million versus 6,600 million
• Die size: 496 mm² versus 284 mm²
• Base clock: 975 MHz versus 1530 MHz
• Boost clock: 1500 MHz versus 1785 MHz
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory bus: 256 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Shading units: 7424 versus 1408
• TMUs: 232 versus 88
• ROPs: 96 versus 48
• RT cores: 58 versus none
• Tensor cores: 232 versus none
• Pixel rate: 144.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 348.0 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s
• FP32: 22.27 TFLOPS versus 5.027 TFLOPS
• FP16: 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 165 W versus 125 W
• Slot width: Not listed versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 300 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 1.0 x4
• Display outputs: Portable device dependent versus no outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Release date: 2022-03-21 versus 2021-02-24

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 Mobile wins in all compute and graphics scenarios. Its 22.27 TFLOPS FP32 and 58 RT cores make it suitable for rendering, ray tracing, scientific compute, and AI workloads (232 tensor cores). The 16 GB VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth support large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 94th percentile standing means it competes with desktop workstation GPUs, making it a strong pick for mobile workstations used in engineering, content creation, or data science.

The CMP 30HX has no benchmark wins. Its advantages are purely physical and operational: lower TDP (125 W), smaller dimensions (229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width), and a single 8-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. It uses less power and takes less space. But it has no display outputs, no RT cores, no tensor cores, and only 6 GB VRAM. Its 89th percentile ranking places it near mid-range AMD cards, but those cards offer general-purpose features the CMP 30HX lacks.

For any user choosing between these two, the only reason to pick the CMP 30HX is if the workload is specifically mining-related and power efficiency is paramount. For everything else, the A5500 Mobile's 90.6% OpenCL lead and 65.8% Vulkan lead make it the only rational choice. The data does not support any other conclusion.