GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX and AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT represent two very different answers to the same question: how to get maximum compute performance. The CMP 50HX is a Turing-based mining card, stripped of display outputs and built for a single purpose. The RX 6800 XT is a full-featured RDNA 2.0 gaming flagship. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the reasons behind it and the practical implications for a buyer are more nuanced than a simple score comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the data. There is no contest in raw compute. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800 XT scores 171,304 against the CMP 50HX’s 56,135, a massive 67.2% advantage. The gap narrows slightly in Geekbench Vulkan, but the AMD card still dominates with a score of 136,875 versus 47,445, a 65.3% lead. If the task is purely about executing compute workloads, the RX 6800 XT is the undisputed winner.

However, the CMP 50HX has its own niche. It is a mining-specific product with no display outputs, meaning it cannot be used for gaming or any visual output tasks. Its only purpose is computational throughput. The data suggests it is not even particularly good at that versus its rival, but its advantage lies elsewhere: power efficiency per unit of work. The CMP 50HX has a TDP of 250 W, while the RX 6800 XT is rated at 300 W. Given its lower power draw and significantly lower compute scores, the CMP 50HX delivers far less performance per watt. The RX 6800 XT wins on absolute performance, while the CMP 50HX’s only potential edge is its lower absolute power draw, which might be relevant in a power-constrained mining setup, though the performance deficit makes this a weak argument.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is decisively faster. It leads by 67.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and 65.3% in Geekbench Vulkan. Its FP32 throughput is 20.74 TFLOPS, nearly double the CMP 50HX’s 11.07 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the NVIDIA CMP 50HX be used for gaming?

A: No. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, making it impossible to connect a monitor. It is designed exclusively for computational tasks like mining, not for rendering frames.

Q: How does memory capacity and bandwidth compare?

A: The RX 6800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 320-bit bus, giving it higher bandwidth at 560.0 GB/s. The AMD card has more capacity, but the NVIDIA card has faster memory throughput.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The CMP 50HX is built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the RX 6800 XT uses TSMC’s 7 nm node. This explains the significant difference in transistor density: 24.7M per mm² for the CMP 50HX versus 51.5M per mm² for the RX 6800 XT.

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6800 XT is at the 85th percentile. Despite the RX 6800 XT’s massive lead in head-to-head tests, the CMP 50HX edges out the AMD card in the overall percentile ranking due to its higher average benchmark score of 51,790 versus 48,477.

Q: What are the power supply requirements?

A: The CMP 50HX has a TDP of 250 W and suggests a 600 W power supply. The RX 6800 XT has a TDP of 300 W and recommends a 700 W power supply. Both use dual 8-pin power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests paint a stark picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800 XT scores 171,304, which is 115,169 points higher than the CMP 50HX’s 56,135. This translates to a 67.2% deficit for the NVIDIA card. The result indicates a fundamental architectural advantage for the RDNA 2.0 card in general-purpose compute tasks.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with slightly less disparity. The RX 6800 XT posts a score of 136,875, against the CMP 50HX’s 47,445. The 65.3% gap confirms that the AMD card’s advantage is not limited to a single API. The CMP 50HX’s architecture, which relies on Turing’s 448 tensor cores for its compute capabilities, is simply outmatched by the RX 6800 XT’s 4608 shading units and 72 ray accelerators.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RX 6800 XT has a much richer dataset. It scores 181,337 in Geekbench Metal, 24,980 in Passmark G3D, and 13,245 in Passmark GPU Compute. These results, while not directly comparable to the CMP 50HX’s limited two scores, demonstrate the AMD card’s versatility across different workloads and APIs. The CMP 50HX, by contrast, has no data for DirectX, Metal, or Passmark tests, reinforcing its status as a niche product with a narrow testing footprint.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal two cards with different priorities. The CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. The RX 6800 XT counters with 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The AMD card has more of everything in the core compute pipeline, which explains its superior pixel rate (288.0 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (648.0 GTexel/s versus 296.6 GTexel/s).

Clock speeds also favor the RX 6800 XT. Its base clock is 1825 MHz, and its boost clock reaches 2250 MHz. The CMP 50HX has a base clock of 1350 MHz and a boost of 1545 MHz. Even the AMD card’s game clock of 2015 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA card’s maximum boost. This clock advantage, combined with the higher core counts, drives the massive FP32 performance gap: 20.74 TFLOPS for the RX 6800 XT versus 11.07 TFLOPS for the CMP 50HX.

Memory is the one area where the CMP 50HX has a technical edge. It uses a 320-bit bus compared to the RX 6800 XT’s 256-bit bus, resulting in higher bandwidth (560.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s). However, the RX 6800 XT has 60% more memory capacity (16 GB versus 10 GB). For mining workloads that are often memory-bandwidth sensitive, the CMP 50HX’s faster bus might help, but it does not compensate for the core compute deficit in the benchmark results.

Physical specifications are nearly identical. Both cards are dual-slot, 267 mm long, and use two 8-pin power connectors. The RX 6800 XT is slightly taller (120 mm versus 116 mm) and thicker (50 mm versus 35 mm). The AMD card also has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C), while the CMP 50HX has none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The CMP 50HX uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process. The RX 6800 XT uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process. The process node difference is critical: the 7 nm node allows AMD to pack 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.5M transistors per mm². The CMP 50HX has 18,600 million transistors on a much larger 754 mm² die, with a density of just 24.7M per mm².

The RX 6800 XT also features 72 ray tracing cores, while the CMP 50HX has 56 RT cores. Neither card is marketed for ray tracing, but the AMD card has more hardware dedicated to it. The CMP 50HX includes 448 tensor cores, which are absent from the RX 6800 XT. These tensor cores are intended for AI and deep learning workloads, but they do not appear to help the CMP 50HX in the Geekbench tests, where the AMD card dominates.

The interface also differs: the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited bus, while the RX 6800 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16. This is a critical distinction. The mining card’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface could bottleneck data transfer in certain workloads, whereas the RX 6800 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x16 provides full bandwidth. The RX 6800 XT is also part of the Radeon RX 6000 series with a successor (Navi III) and predecessor (Navi), while the CMP 50HX sits alone in the "Mining GPUs" generation with no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is the superior product in almost every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by a wide margin, has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores, runs at higher clock speeds, and offers more memory capacity. Its FP32 performance is 20.74 TFLOPS, nearly double the CMP 50HX’s 11.07 TFLOPS. The RX 6800 XT also has display outputs, making it a functional graphics card, while the CMP 50HX is a compute-only device.

The one area where the CMP 50HX technically leads is memory bandwidth (560.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s) and its lower TDP (250 W versus 300 W). It also holds a higher percentile ranking (86th versus 85th) and a higher average benchmark score (51,790 versus 48,477) when all GPUs are considered, despite losing the direct head-to-head tests. This suggests the CMP 50HX’s two benchmark scores are strong relative to the broader GPU population, but its limited testing footprint makes this comparison less meaningful.

For any buyer, the choice is clear. The RX 6800 XT offers far more performance, more features, and a full display interface. The CMP 50HX is a relic of the mining boom, designed for a niche that no longer justifies its existence. The data shows no scenario where the CMP 50HX outperforms the RX 6800 XT. Unless a specific workload requires the CMP 50HX’s higher memory bandwidth or lower power draw, and can tolerate the PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, the RX 6800 XT is the only rational choice. The RX 6800 XT’s launch MSRP was 649 USD, but it is end-of-life, so current pricing is not available in the data. Regardless, the performance gap makes the AMD card the definitive winner.