GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX and AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT are both end-of-life, output-less compute cards, but they occupy very different tiers of the benchmark database. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the CMP 50HX holding a decisive lead in both shared tests, though the AMD card counters with a superior process node and a distinct compute-oriented feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is limited to two shared benchmark tests, and the NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 50HX scores 56,135 against the Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s 41,772, a margin of 34.4%. This is a substantial gap that reflects the underlying hardware disparity: the CMP 50HX’s 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than double the AMD card’s 5.398 TFLOPS, and its 560.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 2.5 times higher. The OpenCL result is the most lopsided of the two tests, emphasizing the NVIDIA card’s raw compute advantage in a workload that scales well with shading units and memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive. The CMP 50HX scores 47,445 versus 39,601 for the Radeon Pro 5500 XT, a 19.8% advantage. The smaller delta in Vulkan suggests that the AMD card’s RDNA 1.0 architecture is comparatively more efficient in this API, or that the test is less sensitive to the CMP 50HX’s raw resources. Still, the NVIDIA card wins outright, and the data shows no test in which the AMD card takes the lead. The CMP 50HX’s average benchmark score of 51,790 further reinforces its position, placing it 14.1% above the Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s 45,384 average.

Contextualizing against their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in a similar performance tier relative to the broader GPU population. The CMP 50HX holds an 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at a 1.6% higher average score. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT, at the 84th percentile, is bracketed by the Intel Arc A730M (0.5% lower) and NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (1.3% higher). This indicates that while the CMP 50HX is the stronger performer of the two, both cards are clustered within a few percentage points of their respective nearest competitors, and neither is an outlier in its performance class.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA CMP 50HX is the superior compute card in every shared benchmark. Users prioritizing raw OpenCL or Vulkan throughput should select the CMP 50HX without hesitation. Its 34.4% OpenCL lead and 19.8% Vulkan lead are not marginal; they represent a full performance tier of separation. The card’s 3584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units dwarf the AMD card’s 1536, 96, and 32, respectively, and the 10 GB memory allocation with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial buffer for memory-bound workloads.

However, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT is not without merit, and the data supports its selection in specific scenarios. Its 7 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, yields a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², compared to the CMP 50HX’s 24.7M per mm² on a 12 nm node. For workloads that are sensitive to power efficiency or thermal density, the AMD card’s 125 W TDP versus the NVIDIA card’s 250 W TDP is a significant differentiator. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT also requires no external power connectors, while the CMP 50HX demands two 8-pin connectors, and the AMD card’s suggested PSU is 300 W versus 600 W for the NVIDIA card. For a system with limited power delivery or constrained thermals, the AMD card is the pragmatic choice.

Furthermore, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is notably more modern than the CMP 50HX’s PCIe 1.0 x4. For compute tasks that involve frequent host-device transfers, this interface difference could mitigate some of the raw compute deficit, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect. The AMD card also supports a broader set of benchmark tests, including Geekbench Metal, where it scores 54,779, a result not available for the NVIDIA card. This suggests the Radeon Pro 5500 XT has a more diverse software ecosystem, particularly for Apple-centric or Metal-based workloads. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether raw compute performance (CMP 50HX) or efficiency and interface modernity (Radeon Pro 5500 XT) is the priority.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has an average benchmark score of 51,790, which is 14.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s average of 45,384.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA CMP 50HX leads by 34.4% (56,135 vs. 41,772). The Geekbench Vulkan gap is smaller at 19.8% (47,445 vs. 39,601).

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark tests?

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins both. However, the AMD card has a Geekbench Metal score of 54,779, a test not available for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of power requirements?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a 600 W suggested PSU. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has a 125 W TDP, requires no external power connectors, and has a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses a 7 nm process node, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX uses a 12 nm node. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the AMD card has a higher transistor density at 40.5M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 with a 320-bit bus and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The CMP 50HX also features 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, while the AMD card has none of either. Memory capacity differs: 10 GB versus 8 GB, with bus widths of 320-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth of 560.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Clock speeds are relatively close, with the CMP 50HX boosting to 1545 MHz and the Radeon Pro 5500 XT boosting higher to 1757 MHz, though the base clocks are 1350 MHz and 1187 MHz, respectively. The pixel rate is 123.6 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 56.22 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rates are 296.6 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 11.07 TFLOPS versus 5.398 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.15 TFLOPS versus 10.80 TFLOPS (both at 2:1). Power envelopes differ substantially: 250 W TDP versus 125 W, with the NVIDIA card requiring 2x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU, while the AMD card has no connectors and a 300 W PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 for the NVIDIA card versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD. Physical dimensions are only listed for the NVIDIA card: 267 mm length, 116 mm height, and 35 mm width. Both cards have no display outputs and support DirectX (12 Ultimate for NVIDIA, 12 (12_1) for AMD), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ, with the NVIDIA card launching later (June 2021) than the AMD card (August 2020).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is built on the Turing architecture with the TU102 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It packs 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die, yielding a density of 24.7M per mm². Turing brings dedicated RT cores (56) and tensor cores (448), enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, though the card has no display outputs to leverage these in a visual context. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT, by contrast, uses AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 40.5M per mm². RDNA 1.0 lacks dedicated RT and tensor cores, relying on traditional shader-based compute. The process node difference is the most consequential architectural distinction: the 7 nm node allows the AMD card to operate at a higher boost clock (1757 MHz vs. 1545 MHz) while consuming half the power (125 W vs. 250 W). The NVIDIA card’s larger die and higher transistor count enable its massive compute and memory throughput advantage, but at the cost of significantly higher power draw and physical size (267 mm length, dual-slot). Both cards support DirectX 12, but the NVIDIA card implements 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD card is limited to 12 (12_1), reflecting a newer feature set in the former. The AMD card’s PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is architecturally more advanced than the NVIDIA card’s PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an anomaly for a 2021 product and may bottleneck data transfer in certain workloads. Neither card has display outputs, signaling their purpose as dedicated compute or mining accelerators.