NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA CMP 90HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head comparison between these two mining-oriented GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA CMP 90HX scores 69,000 points against the NVIDIA CMP 50HX's 56,135 points. That is a 22.9% advantage for the CMP 90HX, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared 10 GB memory capacity and 320-bit memory bus.

The CMP 90HX's score of 69,000 places it at the 90th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival, the Intel Arc A770, averages 68,809 points, only 0.3% behind. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 trails by 0.6% with 68,562 points. On the upper end, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 sits 1.2% ahead at 69,870 points, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 leads by 1.4% at 69,986 points. This clustering means the CMP 90HX trades blows with professional and high-end consumer cards, landing right in the middle of a tight competitive pack.

The CMP 50HX, by contrast, scores 56,135 in OpenCL and 47,445 in Vulkan, averaging 51,790 across its two recorded benchmarks. That average places it at the 86th percentile, notably lower than the CMP 90HX's 90th. Its nearest rivals show how close it sits to mainstream and previous-generation flagships. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT averages 50,951 points, only 1.6% behind. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is 3.6% behind at 50,001 points, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti trails by 3.7% with 49,957 points. The Intel Arc A550M rounds out the group at 49,737 points, 4.1% lower.

The margin between the two CMP cards is not a minor gap. A 22.9% delta in OpenCL performance means the CMP 90HX delivers roughly one-fifth more compute throughput in this workload. That is the kind of difference that changes which tasks are feasible and which are not. The CMP 50HX, while still ahead of its own rivals by small margins, sits firmly below the CMP 90HX in raw compute capability.

Interestingly, the CMP 50HX has two benchmark records in the database, one OpenCL and one Vulkan, while the CMP 90HX has only the OpenCL result. The Vulkan score of 47,445 is notably lower than its OpenCL score of 56,135, a 15.5% drop that suggests the card's compute performance depends heavily on the API used. No Vulkan result exists for the CMP 90HX, so a direct cross-API comparison between the two cards is not possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The wins are lopsided. The CMP 90HX claims the only head-to-head benchmark victory, taking the OpenCL test by 22.9%. The CMP 50HX has zero wins in direct comparison. That makes the use-case split straightforward: the CMP 90HX is the stronger compute platform for OpenCL workloads, which dominate many general-purpose and mining applications.

The CMP 50HX does have its own strengths, but they do not show up in the recorded benchmark wins. Its FP16 throughput is 22.15 TFLOPS, slightly ahead of the CMP 90HX's 21.89 TFLOPS. It also carries more tensor cores, 448 versus 200, and more ray tracing cores, 56 versus 50. These architectural advantages could matter for specific workloads that leverage tensor operations or ray tracing, but the database contains no benchmark results for either card in those areas. The only measured performance data points to the CMP 90HX as the faster card in OpenCL.

For power-constrained deployments, the CMP 50HX draws 250 W against the CMP 90HX's 320 W, and it suggests a 600 W power supply versus 700 W. The CMP 50HX is also shorter at 267 mm against 285 mm for the CMP 90HX, and it has a specified width of 35 mm. If installation space or power delivery is the limiting factor, the CMP 50HX offers a smaller, lower-power package. The performance trade-off is the 22.9% OpenCL deficit.

The CMP 90HX, meanwhile, offers substantially higher memory bandwidth at 760.3 GB/s compared to 560.0 GB/s for the CMP 50HX. It achieves this with GDDR6X memory running at 19 Gbps effective, while the CMP 50HX uses slower GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth is often a bottleneck for compute-heavy tasks, and the 35.8% advantage in this metric aligns with the CMP 90HX's benchmark lead.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different GPU generations and foundries. The CMP 90HX uses the GA102 chip on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip on the older Turing architecture, built by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 8 nm versus 12 nm allows the Ampere chip to pack more transistors into a smaller area.

Transistor counts reflect this. The GA102 in the CMP 90HX contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The TU102 in the CMP 50HX holds 18,600 million transistors on a larger 754 mm² die, giving a density of just 24.7 million per square millimeter. The CMP 90HX packs nearly twice the density, a direct result of the more advanced process node.

The compute configurations differ sharply. The CMP 90HX has 6,400 shading units, 200 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 80 ROPs. The shading unit count is nearly double on the CMP 90HX, which drives its FP32 throughput of 21.89 TFLOPS versus 11.07 TFLOPS for the CMP 50HX. That is a 97.7% advantage in single-precision compute, even larger than the OpenCL benchmark gap.

Ray tracing and tensor core counts tell a different story. The CMP 50HX has 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, while the CMP 90HX has 50 RT cores and 200 tensor cores. The CMP 50HX leads in both categories. Its FP16 performance of 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio also edges out the CMP 90HX's 21.89 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This suggests the Turing card was configured with different priorities, possibly favoring workloads that use tensor operations or mixed-precision arithmetic.

Both cards share the same memory capacity of 10 GB, but the type and speed differ. The CMP 90HX uses GDDR6X at 19 Gbps effective, delivering 760.3 GB/s across a 320-bit bus. The CMP 50HX uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, delivering 560.0 GB/s on the same 320-bit bus. The bandwidth gap of 200.3 GB/s is substantial and likely contributes to the CMP 90HX's compute advantage.

Both cards have identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are dual-slot designs with 2x 8-pin power connectors and no display outputs, consistent with their mining-oriented purpose. Both use a PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, which is unusual and may limit data transfer speeds in some scenarios, though mining workloads typically keep data on the card.

The release dates are close: the CMP 50HX launched on 2021-06-23 and the CMP 90HX on 2021-07-27. Both are end-of-life products now.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads: the NVIDIA CMP 90HX. Its 69,000 OpenCL score beats the CMP 50HX by 22.9%, and its FP32 throughput of 21.89 TFLOPS is nearly double the CMP 50HX's 11.07 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s outclasses the CMP 50HX's 560.0 GB/s by a wide margin. Any workload that depends on raw single-precision compute or memory throughput will favor the CMP 90HX.

The CMP 50HX is not without merit. Its 250 W power draw is 70 W lower than the CMP 90HX's 320 W, and its 267 mm length is shorter. It also has more tensor cores and RT cores, along with slightly higher FP16 throughput. For deployments where power or space is the primary constraint, or where tensor-heavy workloads are the target, the CMP 50HX could be the more appropriate fit. The data shows it performs close to the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, only 1.6% ahead, which puts it in respectable company.

However, on pure measured compute performance, the CMP 90HX wins decisively. It sits at the 90th percentile among all GPUs, while the CMP 50HX sits at the 86th. The CMP 90HX's nearest rivals are all within 1.4% of its score, meaning it competes with professional-grade cards like the Quadro P6000 and Radeon Pro WX 8200. The CMP 50HX's nearest rivals are within 4.1%, but its absolute scores are much lower.

For anyone selecting between these two for mining or general compute, the recorded data favors the CMP 90HX in OpenCL performance by a significant margin. The CMP 50HX only makes sense when its lower power draw, smaller size, or higher tensor core count is the deciding factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 90HX scores 69,000 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the CMP 50HX scores 56,135 points, a 22.9% difference in favor of the CMP 90HX.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The CMP 90HX delivers 760.3 GB/s using GDDR6X memory at 19 Gbps effective, while the CMP 50HX delivers 560.0 GB/s using GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective. Both use a 320-bit bus and 10 GB capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The CMP 90HX has a 320 W TDP and suggests a 700 W power supply. The CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP and suggests a 600 W power supply. Both use 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The CMP 90HX has 6,400 shading units, compared to 3,584 on the CMP 50HX. This drives its FP32 performance of 21.89 TFLOPS versus 11.07 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX have any advantages over the CMP 90HX?

A: Yes, the CMP 50HX has 448 tensor cores and 56 ray tracing cores, compared to 200 and 50 on the CMP 90HX. Its FP16 throughput is 22.15 TFLOPS, slightly higher than the CMP 90HX's 21.89 TFLOPS.

Q: How does each card rank among all GPUs?

A: The CMP 90HX is at the 90th percentile, while the CMP 50HX is at the 86th percentile. The CMP 90HX's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770 at 0.3% behind, while the CMP 50HX's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 1.6% behind.