NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA Tesla P40 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between the NVIDIA Tesla P40 and the NVIDIA CMP 30HX, with each card claiming one win in the two head-to-head tests. The Tesla P40 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 68,172, beating the CMP 30HX’s 62,484 by a substantial 9.1% margin. In contrast, the CMP 30HX strikes back in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 65,199 against the P40’s 62,017, a 4.9% advantage. This creates an interesting dynamic: the older Pascal-based card dominates in the Vulkan API, while the newer Turing-based card leads in OpenCL.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across both tests, the Tesla P40 posts an average of 65,095, which places it 2% ahead of the CMP 30HX’s 63,842 average. However, this aggregate figure masks the divergent per-test results. The P40’s Vulkan score is its standout achievement, and that single result is enough to push its overall average above the CMP 30HX, despite losing the OpenCL test. The CMP 30HX, meanwhile, shows a narrower spread between its two scores—65,199 in OpenCL versus 62,484 in Vulkan—indicating more consistent performance across APIs, though its Vulkan showing is clearly the weaker of the two.

The nearest-rival data reinforces how close these two cards are in the broader GPU landscape. The P40’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon VII, which averages 66,004, putting the Radeon VII 1.4% ahead of the P40. Just below the P40 sits the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 at 64,212, which the P40 edges out by 1.4%. The CMP 30HX, for its part, sits essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, which scores 63,830—a 0% delta—and is just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775. Both cards achieve an 89th percentile ranking among all GPUs, placing them in the same general performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla P40 is the clear choice for Vulkan-based workloads. Its 9.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the single largest margin in this comparison, and it suggests that the Pascal architecture’s Vulkan driver implementation or hardware scheduling provides a tangible advantage. For any application that leverages Vulkan for compute or rendering, the P40’s 68,172 score is the stronger data point. Additionally, the P40’s overall average benchmark score is higher, meaning that if a workload mixes APIs or if a user simply wants the higher aggregate performance number, the P40 comes out ahead.

The CMP 30HX’s win comes in OpenCL, where its 65,199 score beats the P40 by 4.9%. This is significant because OpenCL remains a widely used compute API across scientific, engineering, and data-processing applications. The CMP 30HX also demonstrates better cross-API consistency: its OpenCL score is only 4.2% higher than its Vulkan score, whereas the P40’s Vulkan score is 9.9% higher than its OpenCL score. For users who cannot predict which API their workload will favor, the CMP 30HX’s more balanced profile might be preferable.

The memory configuration also favors different use cases. The P40 packs 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 347.1 GB/s of bandwidth—a capacity that dwarfs the CMP 30HX’s 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, which still manages a comparable 336.0 GB/s. For large datasets that exceed 6 GB, the P40 is the only viable option, as the CMP 30HX would hit memory capacity limits. On the other hand, the CMP 30HX’s GDDR6 memory runs at a higher effective speed of 14 Gbps versus the P40’s 7.2 Gbps, though the P40’s wider bus compensates in raw bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations, and the data reflects that divide. The Tesla P40 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The CMP 30HX, by contrast, uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, on a more advanced 12 nm process from the same foundry. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, with a lower density of 23.2 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The P40 fields 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units, while the CMP 30HX has just 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This explains the P40’s massive throughput advantages: it delivers 11.76 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the CMP 30HX’s 5.027 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 367.4 GTexel/s is more than double the CMP 30HX’s 157.1 GTexel/s. The pixel rate also favors the P40 at 147.0 GPixel/s versus 85.68 GPixel/s.

However, the FP16 story flips entirely. The CMP 30HX achieves 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the P40 manages only 183.7 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio. This makes the CMP 30HX vastly more capable for FP16 workloads, such as certain machine learning inference tasks that use reduced precision. The clock speeds also differ: the CMP 30HX runs at a 1,530 MHz base and 1,785 MHz boost, while the P40 operates at 1,303 MHz base and 1,531 MHz boost.

The power envelope is another major differentiator. The CMP 30HX is rated at 125 W TDP with a suggested 300 W power supply, while the P40 consumes 250 W and requires a 600 W power supply. The CMP 30HX also uses a single 8-pin power connector, whereas the P40 uses an 8-pin EPS connector, which is less common in consumer systems. Both cards are dual-slot designs with no display outputs, but the P40 is longer at 267 mm versus the CMP 30HX’s 229 mm; both share the same 111 mm height, and the CMP 30HX is 35 mm wide.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload priorities. For FP32-heavy compute, Vulkan-based applications, or tasks requiring more than 6 GB of memory, the NVIDIA Tesla P40 is the stronger card. Its 24 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the CMP 30HX’s 6 GB, and its FP32 throughput of 11.76 TFLOPS is more than double. The P40 also wins the overall average benchmark contest at 65,095 versus 63,842, and its Vulkan score of 68,172 is the single highest result in this comparison. Users who need to process large models, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU workloads where memory capacity is the bottleneck should choose the P40.

For FP16 compute, OpenCL-based workloads, or scenarios where power efficiency is paramount, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the better fit. Its 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16 performance is over 50 times higher than the P40’s, and its 125 W TDP is exactly half the P40’s 250 W, with a correspondingly lower suggested power supply of 300 W versus 600 W. The CMP 30HX also wins the OpenCL test outright, and its compact 229 mm length and 35 mm width may fit in smaller chassis. The CMP 30HX’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, however, is a notable downgrade from the P40’s PCIe 3.0 x16, which could bottleneck data transfers in bandwidth-sensitive applications.

Both cards carry an 89th percentile ranking among all GPUs, meaning either will perform in the top tier of available hardware. The decision ultimately hinges on the specific API, precision format, and memory capacity requirements of the intended workload. The P40’s launch MSRP was 5,699 USD, while the CMP 30HX launched at 799 USD. Neither card has a successor in the data, and both are end-of-life products, so availability and driver support should be verified before purchase.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher overall average benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P40 has an average benchmark score of 65,095, which is 2% higher than the NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s 63,842 average.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Tesla P40 scores 68,172 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the CMP 30HX’s 62,484 by 9.1%. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any test.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla P40 has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. Despite the capacity difference, their memory bandwidths are close: 347.1 GB/s for the P40 versus 336.0 GB/s for the CMP 30HX.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The CMP 30HX has a 125 W TDP and suggests a 300 W power supply, while the Tesla P40 has a 250 W TDP and suggests a 600 W power supply. The CMP 30HX uses half the power of the P40.

Q: How does FP16 performance compare between the two cards?

A: The CMP 30HX delivers 10.05 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, while the Tesla P40 manages only 183.7 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. The CMP 30HX is overwhelmingly stronger in FP16 workloads.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: The Tesla P40’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon VII, which is 1.4% faster, followed by the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, which the P40 beats by 1.4%. The CMP 30HX is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 0% delta and is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M.