AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX records an average benchmark score of 51,790, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X averages 39,116. That places the CMP 50HX about 32.4% higher in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The CMP 50HX scores 56,135 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 34,773 for the Radeon Pro 575X. The delta is 61.4% in favor of the NVIDIA card, the largest gap in any shared test.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head results, the CMP 50HX wins both tests: OpenCL and Vulkan. The Radeon Pro 575X has no recorded win; the wins tally is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: What is the Vulkan score difference?

A: The CMP 50HX reaches 47,445 in Geekbench Vulkan, and the Radeon Pro 575X posts 37,919. That is a 25.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 575X is at the 82nd percentile. Both are above the midpoint, but the NVIDIA part ranks higher overall.

Q: What are their closest rivals according to the database?

A: For the CMP 50HX, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951 (1.6% behind), followed by the RX Vega 64 at 50,001 (3.6% behind). For the Radeon Pro 575X, the closest is the Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 (1.1% ahead), with the Radeon Pro 575 at 39,555 (1.1% behind).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The CMP 50HX is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture using the TU102 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 18,600 million transistors onto a 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro 575X uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its transistor count is 5,700 million on a 232 mm² die, with a nearly identical density of 24.6 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ sharply. The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 56 ray tracing cores and 448 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Radeon Pro 575X. The AMD part fields 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a 75% higher shading unit count for NVIDIA, though architectural efficiency differs between Turing and GCN 4.0.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The CMP 50HX uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 217.0 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is substantial: 343 GB/s, or roughly 2.6 times more for the NVIDIA card.

Clock behavior is another distinction. The CMP 50HX has explicit base and boost clocks at 1350 MHz and 1545 MHz respectively. The Radeon Pro 575X lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), which is nearly double the effective data rate.

API support also separates them. The CMP 50HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Turing part has a more recent DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan revision.

Power and physical design could hardly be more different. The CMP 50HX is a dual-slot card drawing 250 W, requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Radeon Pro 575X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 150 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The NVIDIA card has no display outputs, while the AMD part's outputs are described as portable device dependent. The CMP 50HX measures 267 mm in length, 116 mm in height, and 35 mm in width; the AMD card has no recorded dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The CMP 50HX wins in every benchmark category where both have results. Its OpenCL score of 56,135 versus 34,773 is a commanding lead, and its Vulkan score of 47,445 versus 37,919 is also decisive. The database records two wins for NVIDIA and zero for AMD.

For compute-heavy workloads, the CMP 50HX is the clear choice. Its higher shading unit count, tensor cores, and ray tracing cores suggest capabilities in AI inference, ray-traced rendering, and high-throughput parallel tasks. The 560.0 GB/s bandwidth supports large data movement, and the 10 GB frame buffer allows larger working sets than the 4 GB on the AMD card.

The Radeon Pro 575X has no benchmark wins, but its profile suggests a different role. As an IGP with no power connectors, it fits into compact or integrated systems where discrete card installation is impossible. Its 150 W TDP and lack of external power requirements make it suitable for power-constrained environments. The portable device dependent display outputs indicate it is designed for mobile or all-in-one form factors.

The CMP 50HX, by contrast, is a mining-focused card with no display outputs at all. It cannot drive a monitor, so its use case is purely computational. The Radeon Pro 575X, despite being an IGP, retains display capability, making it more flexible for systems that need both graphics output and compute.

For raw performance per benchmark score, the CMP 50HX dominates. For system integration flexibility, the Radeon Pro 575X has the advantage due to its IGP form factor and no power connector requirement.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: Turing (NVIDIA) versus GCN 4.0 (AMD)
• Chip: TU102 versus Ellesmere
• Process Node: 12 nm versus 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 18,600 million versus 5,700 million
• Die Size: 754 mm² versus 232 mm²
• Base Clock: 1350 MHz versus not specified
• Boost Clock: 1545 MHz versus not specified
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 10 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 320 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 560.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3584 versus 2048
• TMUs: 192 versus 128
• ROPs: 80 versus 32
• RT Cores: 56 versus none
• Tensor Cores: 448 versus none
• Pixel Rate: 123.6 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 296.6 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 11.07 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS
• FP16: 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 250 W versus 150 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus not specified
• Bus Interface: PCIe 1.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus portable device dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 116 mm x 35 mm versus not specified

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a consistent story of NVIDIA superiority, but the magnitude varies significantly by test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 50HX scores 56,135 against the Radeon Pro 575X's 34,773. The delta is 61.4%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than one and a half times the performance. This is the largest gap in the comparison. OpenCL workloads often scale with shading unit count and memory bandwidth, both of which heavily favor the CMP 50HX. The 3,584 shading units versus 2,048, combined with 560.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s, explains much of this advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The CMP 50HX scores 47,445, and the Radeon Pro 575X scores 37,919. The delta is 25.1%. While still a clear win for NVIDIA, the closer gap suggests the AMD architecture handles Vulkan's lower-level API more efficiently relative to its raw specs. The Radeon Pro 575X's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (37,919 versus 34,773), while the CMP 50HX scores lower in Vulkan than OpenCL (47,445 versus 56,135). This crossover indicates that API optimization differs meaningfully between the two architectures.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The CMP 50HX averages 51,790, while the Radeon Pro 575X averages 39,116. The 12,674 point gap represents a 32.4% advantage for NVIDIA. Interestingly, the CMP 50HX's nearest rivals include the RX 6900 XT at 50,951 (1.6% behind) and RX Vega 64 at 50,001 (3.6% behind), placing it in high-end desktop territory. The Radeon Pro 575X's nearest rivals are much closer in score: the Radeon Pro 580X at 38,706 (1.1% ahead) and the Radeon Pro 575 at 39,555 (1.1% behind), indicating it sits in a tightly contested mid-range band.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 32.4% higher average score, and ranks in the 86th percentile versus the Radeon Pro 575X's 82nd. Anyone choosing between these two purely on benchmark performance should select the CMP 50HX.

However, the selection criteria rarely reduce to a single number. The CMP 50HX is a dual-slot, 250 W mining card with no display outputs, requiring two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU. It cannot be installed in systems without adequate power delivery or physical space. The Radeon Pro 575X is an IGP with a 150 W TDP, no power connectors, and display outputs that depend on the portable device. It fits in integrated systems where discrete cards are not an option.

For compute workloads where performance is the sole concern, the CMP 50HX is the obvious pick. Its 61.4% OpenCL lead and 25.1% Vulkan lead leave no ambiguity. The 10 GB GDDR6 memory with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial working set advantage over 4 GB GDDR5 at 217.0 GB/s.

For systems that require integrated graphics, display output, or minimal power draw, the Radeon Pro 575X is the only viable choice of the two. Its 150 W TDP and connector-free design allow installation in power-constrained or compact systems. The performance gap is real, but it is irrelevant if the card cannot physically fit or operate in the target system.

The database also reveals context through nearest rivals. The CMP 50HX competes with the RX 6900 XT and RX Vega 64, high-end cards from the previous generation. The Radeon Pro 575X trades blows with the Radeon Pro 580X and RTX A500 Mobile, a much lower performance tier. This positioning confirms that the CMP 50HX belongs to a different class entirely.

The verdict: pick the CMP 50HX for maximum compute performance in a desktop with adequate power and space. Pick the Radeon Pro 575X for integrated or portable systems where its IGP form factor and lack of power connectors are mandatory constraints. There is no benchmark-based argument for the AMD card in a head-to-head performance comparison; its advantages are entirely in physical and power characteristics.