NVIDIA CMP 30HX vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla T4 and NVIDIA CMP 30HX are both end-of-life Turing-architecture products, but they target entirely different workloads. The T4 is a 70 W single-slot server accelerator designed for datacenter inference, while the CMP 30HX is a 125 W dual-slot mining card with no display outputs. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the CMP 30HX wins in OpenCL, while the T4 dominates in Vulkan. This page analyzes those results, the specification gaps, and which card the data favors for which purpose.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests tell opposite stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 against the Tesla T4's 61,276, a 6% advantage for the mining card. That is a narrow but clear margin, and it aligns with the CMP 30HX's higher base and boost clocks (1530 MHz base, 1785 MHz boost versus 585 MHz base, 1590 MHz boost for the T4). The CMP 30HX also has a higher memory clock (1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective versus 1250 MHz / 10 Gbps effective) and slightly more memory bandwidth (336.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s), which likely contributes to its OpenCL lead.

The Vulkan results flip the script decisively. The Tesla T4 scores 72,190 versus the CMP 30HX's 62,484, a 15.5% advantage for the T4. That is a substantial gap and the largest delta between the two cards in either test. The T4's Vulkan lead is likely tied to its richer feature set: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the CMP 30HX only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), and the T4 includes 40 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, which the CMP 30HX lacks entirely. Those hardware units can accelerate certain compute paths that Vulkan exposes, even if they are not traditionally associated with rasterization performance.

Looking at the broader performance context, the T4's average benchmark score across both tests is 66,733, placing it at the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The CMP 30HX averages 63,842, at the 89th percentile. That one-percentile difference is small, but the T4's average is 4.3% higher in absolute terms. The T4's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (average score 68,562, which beats the T4 by 2.7%) and the Intel Arc A770 (68,809, 3% ahead). On the CMP 30HX side, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830, which is essentially tied (0% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.1% behind the CMP 30HX). The CMP 30HX also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693) by 0.2%, but trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212) by 0.6%.

The split nature of the wins — one each — means the choice between these cards depends heavily on which API matters more for the intended workload. In OpenCL-heavy environments, the CMP 30HX holds a modest edge. In Vulkan-centric applications, the T4 is the clear winner by a double-digit margin. The data does not support a universal "better" card; it supports a workload-specific recommendation.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla T4 has an average benchmark score of 66,733 across its two tests, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX averages 63,842. That puts the T4 approximately 4.5% higher overall, and it ranks at the 90th percentile of all GPUs versus the CMP 30HX's 89th percentile.

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

A: The CMP 30HX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 65,199 versus the T4's 61,276, a 6% advantage. This is consistent with the CMP 30HX's higher clock speeds (1530 MHz base, 1785 MHz boost) and faster memory (14 Gbps effective versus 10 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan, and by how much?

A: The Tesla T4 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test decisively, scoring 72,190 against the CMP 30HX's 62,484. That is a 15.5% lead for the T4, the largest performance gap between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: What are the key architectural differences that affect performance?

A: The T4 uses the TU104 chip with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, while the CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Both are on TSMC's 12 nm process. The T4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores; the CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores.

Q: Do the cards have different memory configurations?

A: Yes. The T4 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with slightly higher bandwidth at 336.0 GB/s. The CMP 30HX's memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the T4's 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).

Q: Are there any differences in API support that could matter?

A: The T4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the CMP 30HX supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The T4's higher DirectX feature level may provide access to advanced rendering features that the CMP 30HX cannot utilize.

The Verdict

The data points to the Tesla T4 for anyone who prioritizes Vulkan performance or needs a datacenter-class accelerator. Its 15.5% Vulkan lead over the CMP 30HX is the single largest performance margin in this comparison, and its average benchmark score of 66,733 places it higher in the percentile ranking (90th versus 89th). The T4's 16 GB of memory is also more than double the CMP 30HX's 6 GB, which matters for large datasets or models. Its 70 W TDP and single-slot form factor, with no power connectors required, make it dramatically easier to integrate into dense server environments. The suggested PSU of 250 W further reflects its low power draw.

The CMP 30HX wins only in OpenCL, with a 6% edge over the T4. That is a real but modest advantage, and it comes with trade-offs: the card draws 125 W (nearly double the T4's 70 W), requires a dual-slot footprint and a single 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. Its 6 GB memory capacity is far smaller than the T4's 16 GB, and its PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface is severely limited compared to the T4's PCIe 3.0 x16. For compute tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL and fit within 6 GB, the CMP 30HX offers a slight speed advantage, but it does so at higher power and with a much more constrained feature set.

The CMP 30HX's nearest rivals further contextualize its standing. It is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (0% delta) and only 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M, meaning it does not stand out within its own performance tier. The T4, by contrast, sits within a tight pack of higher-performing accelerators like the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (2.7% ahead) and Intel Arc A770 (3% ahead), while still beating the AMD Radeon VII (1.1% ahead) and NVIDIA Tesla P40 (2.5% ahead). The T4's position is more competitive relative to its rivals than the CMP 30HX's is.

For most analytical purposes, the Tesla T4 is the stronger card: higher average score, better Vulkan performance, more memory, lower power draw, and a richer feature set including RT and tensor cores. The CMP 30HX is only the better choice for narrow OpenCL-only workloads where its clock speed advantage translates directly into compute throughput and where power consumption is not a primary concern.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification beyond the shared Turing architecture and 12 nm TSMC process node. The Tesla T4 uses the TU104 chip with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, while the CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. Transistor density is slightly higher on the T4 at 25.0M / mm² versus 23.2M / mm² on the CMP 30HX.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The T4 has a base clock of 585 MHz and a boost clock of 1590 MHz. The CMP 30HX runs much higher: 1530 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor the CMP 30HX: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the T4's 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Memory capacity and bus width go the other way — the T4 has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus, while the CMP 30HX has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is close but the CMP 30HX edges ahead at 336.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s.

Compute resources are starkly different. The T4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. The CMP 30HX has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Pixel rate is 101.8 GPixel/s on the T4 versus 85.68 GPixel/s on the CMP 30HX. Texture rate is 254.4 GTexel/s versus 157.1 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 8.141 TFLOPS on the T4 versus 5.027 TFLOPS on the CMP 30HX, and FP16 is 16.28 TFLOPS versus 10.05 TFLOPS (both at 2:1 ratios).

Power and physical specs differ as well. The T4 is a 70 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The CMP 30HX is a 125 W dual-slot card requiring one 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The T4 measures 168 mm in length; the CMP 30HX is 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide. The T4 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. Neither card has display outputs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process, but they implement that architecture very differently. The T4 is part of the Tesla Turing (Txx) generation, positioned as a server accelerator with a predecessor in Tesla Volta and a successor in Server Ampere. The CMP 30HX belongs to the Mining GPUs generation, with no predecessor or successor listed.

The chip designs are fundamentally different in scale. The T4's TU104 is a large, full-featured die with 13,600 million transistors, while the CMP 30HX's TU116 is a smaller, cut-down die with 6,600 million transistors — less than half the transistor count. This size difference explains the T4's much larger compute resource pool: 2,560 shading units versus 1,408, 160 TMUs versus 88, 64 ROPs versus 48.

The most significant architectural divergence is in specialized cores. The T4 integrates 40 RT cores for ray tracing and 320 tensor cores for AI and machine learning workloads. The CMP 30HX has neither. This makes the T4 a genuine compute accelerator capable of handling inference, ray tracing, and tensor operations, while the CMP 30HX is limited to traditional rasterization-style compute. The T4's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support versus the CMP 30HX's DirectX 12 (12_1) reflects this gap, as the higher feature level typically requires hardware support for features like mesh shaders and other advanced capabilities that the T4's RT and tensor cores can enable.

Memory architecture also differs. The T4's 16 GB frame buffer on a 256-bit bus is designed for large models or datasets, while the CMP 30HX's 6 GB on a 192-bit bus is smaller and more modest. Despite the smaller bus, the CMP 30HX achieves higher bandwidth (336.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s) due to its faster memory clock. The T4 compensates with a wider bus and more capacity, prioritizing fit for server workloads over raw bandwidth.

Clock behavior is another architectural differentiator. The T4's base clock of 585 MHz is unusually low, likely a power-saving measure for datacenter deployment, but it boosts to 1590 MHz under load. The CMP 30HX runs at a much higher idle clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz, reflecting its design for sustained compute throughput rather than energy efficiency. The T4's 70 W TDP versus the CMP 30HX's 125 W TDP underscores this difference in design philosophy.

The bus interface also signals intent. The T4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, providing full bandwidth for host communication, which is critical for datacenter workloads where the GPU frequently exchanges data with the CPU. The CMP 30HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited interface that would bottleneck any data-intensive task but is sufficient for mining operations where the GPU works primarily on local data. The T4's single-slot, 168 mm length, and lack of power connectors are consistent with high-density server installations, while the CMP 30HX's dual-slot, 229 mm length, and 8-pin connector are typical of consumer-style mining rigs.