NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is in a completely different performance class than the NVIDIA CMP 50HX, and the benchmark data makes that clear. Across the two shared tests, the RTX 4080 SUPER wins decisively, with margins that are less about optimization and more about raw architectural dominance. The CMP 50HX, a Turing-era mining card, is not competitive in any compute scenario measured, while the RTX 4080 SUPER sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 54,209.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both cards have recorded scores are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the RTX 4080 SUPER wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065 against the CMP 50HX’s 56,135. That is a delta of 290.2%, meaning the Ada Lovelace card delivers nearly four times the OpenCL performance. This is not a close contest; the compute throughput difference is so large that the CMP 50HX would need multiple parallel instances to approach parity.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX 4080 SUPER posts 260,075, while the CMP 50HX manages only 47,445. The delta here is 448.2%, so the RTX 4080 SUPER is over five times faster in Vulkan. This gap reflects more than just clock speeds or core counts; it points to fundamental differences in shader efficiency, memory bandwidth, and driver maturity. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, so its Vulkan score is purely a compute-oriented result, yet it still loses by a factor of five.

Beyond the head-to-head, the RTX 4080 SUPER shows broader strength across other benchmarks. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 6,600. Its Passmark G3D score is 34,245, and its GPU compute score is 19,822. The CMP 50HX has no scores in these tests, so no direct comparison is possible, but the RTX 4080 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 54,209 versus the CMP 50HX’s 51,790 tells the story. Even without a shared test, the RTX 4080 SUPER’s average is 2,419 points higher, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 4080 (delta -0.1%) and AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (delta -1.1%), placing it firmly in high-end territory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is the superior product for any task that involves graphics or compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 290.2% and 448.2%, and its average benchmark score of 54,209 is higher than the CMP 50HX’s 51,790. The CMP 50HX does have a higher percentile ranking relative to its own rivals — it sits at the 86th percentile, tied with the RTX 4080 SUPER — but that is because its nearest rivals (AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at delta 1.6%, AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at delta 3.6%) are slower cards.

Who should pick the RTX 4080 SUPER? Anyone needing a general-purpose GPU with strong compute, given its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory, 52.22 TFLOPS FP32, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), making it usable for gaming or professional visualization. The CMP 50HX, with no display outputs and only 10 GB of GDDR6, is strictly a compute device, and even then it loses by a wide margin in the only compute tests available.

The CMP 50HX is not without merit, but its merits are relative to older cards. It beats the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 1.6% and the RX Vega 64 by 3.6% in average score. But against the RTX 4080 SUPER, it is outclassed. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 4080 SUPER is the pick for performance, and the CMP 50HX is only relevant if you are constrained to its specific niche and cannot use a card with modern compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 SUPER in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 219,065 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the CMP 50HX’s 56,135, which is a delta of 290.2% in favor of the RTX 4080 SUPER.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX win any benchmark against the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: No. In the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX 4080 SUPER wins both, with the CMP 50HX recording zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54,209, while the CMP 50HX averages 51,790. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s average is higher by 2,419 points.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: Both cards are at the 86th percentile. However, the RTX 4080 SUPER’s nearest rivals are faster (RTX 4080 at delta -0.1%), while the CMP 50HX’s nearest rivals are slower (RX 6900 XT at delta 1.6%).

Q: Can the CMP 50HX be used for display output?

A: No. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, whereas the RTX 4080 SUPER offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: How do the Vulkan scores compare?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER scores 260,075 in Geekbench Vulkan, and the CMP 50HX scores 47,445, resulting in a delta of 448.2% for the RTX 4080 SUPER.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply in nearly every specification. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, with 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, while the CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ: the RTX 4080 SUPER runs at a base of 2295 MHz and boost of 2550 MHz, while the CMP 50HX is at 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores; the CMP 50HX has 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores. Memory clocks are 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4080 SUPER versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the CMP 50HX.

Power and physical design differ as well. The RTX 4080 SUPER has a TDP of 320 W, is triple-slot, and uses a single 16-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The CMP 50HX has a TDP of 250 W, is dual-slot, uses two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The RTX 4080 SUPER measures 310 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width; the CMP 50HX is 267 mm long, 116 mm high, and 35 mm wide. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4080 SUPER and PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 50HX.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4080 SUPER is built on the AD103 chip using Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It has 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip with Turing architecture, on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It has 18,600 million transistors on a much larger 754 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 24.7M per mm².

The process node difference is stark: 5 nm versus 12 nm. This explains why the RTX 4080 SUPER achieves higher clocks and far greater compute efficiency despite a smaller die. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s FP32 performance is 52.22 TFLOPS, while the CMP 50HX offers only 11.07 TFLOPS. In FP16, the RTX 4080 SUPER matches its FP32 at 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the CMP 50HX doubles its FP32 to 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), but that is still less than half of the RTX 4080 SUPER’s FP16 throughput.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 320 tensor cores versus the CMP 50HX’s 448, but the Ada Lovelace tensor cores are architecturally newer and more capable per core. The CMP 50HX has more RT cores per shading unit (56 vs 80), but the RTX 4080 SUPER’s RT cores are from a newer generation. The CMP 50HX’s lack of display outputs is a fundamental architectural difference, as it is designed purely for compute workloads, while the RTX 4080 SUPER is a full-featured graphics card.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 SUPER wins in every measured benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 290.2% faster. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 448.2% faster. It also holds higher scores in Passmark tests (G3D 34,245, GPU compute 19,822) and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (6,600), though the CMP 50HX has no scores in those tests to compare against. The RTX 4080 SUPER is the clear choice for gaming, rendering, or any task requiring display output, given its 16 GB memory and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth.

The CMP 50HX does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has a niche: it is a mining-oriented card with a lower TDP (250 W versus 320 W) and dual-slot design, which may fit into specific server or mining rig layouts. Its 448 tensor cores could theoretically serve compute tasks, but its 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 is far below the RTX 4080 SUPER’s 52.22 TFLOPS. In practice, the CMP 50HX’s only advantage is its relative strength against older rivals like the RX 6900 XT (1.6% higher average score), not against the RTX 4080 SUPER.

For users who need raw performance per watt or the highest compute throughput, the RTX 4080 SUPER is the only rational pick. The CMP 50HX’s 10 GB memory and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for modern workloads, and its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface severely limits data transfer speeds. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, combined with its 5 nm process and Ada Lovelace architecture, makes it a more future-proof and versatile product across all available data points.