NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA P102-100 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two mining-oriented NVIDIA cards cleanly by workload type. The NVIDIA P102-100 is the clear choice for Vulkan-based compute, delivering a 42.2% higher score than the CMP 50HX in the geekbench_vulkan test (67454 vs 47445). Conversely, the NVIDIA CMP 50HX dominates OpenCL workloads, beating the P102-100 by 11.6% (56135 vs 49602).

Looking at aggregate performance, the P102-100 holds a higher average benchmark score of 58528 compared to the CMP 50HX’s 51790 — a difference of roughly 13%. The P102-100 also ranks in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, two points above the CMP 50HX’s 86th percentile. However, the CMP 50HX sits closer to its nearest rivals in relative terms, with its closest competitor (AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT) trailing by only 1.6%, while the P102-100’s nearest rival (AMD Radeon PRO V710) is essentially tied at -0.2%.

For a buyer choosing strictly from the data, the P102-100 is the better all-around pick if Vulkan performance matters or if you want higher peak benchmark results. The CMP 50HX is the better choice for OpenCL-centric tasks and offers double the memory capacity (10 GB vs 5 GB), which could matter for larger datasets. Both cards are end-of-life products with identical 250 W TDP, dual-slot designs, and 2x 8-pin power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The P102-100 uses the GP102 chip built on Pascal architecture at TSMC’s 16 nm process, while the CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture at TSMC’s 12 nm process. The transistor counts differ dramatically: the CMP 50HX packs 18,600 million transistors across a 754 mm² die, versus 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die for the P102-100. Transistor density is nearly identical — 25.1M per mm² for the P102-100 versus 24.7M per mm² for the CMP 50HX — indicating the larger die is the primary driver of the CMP 50HX’s higher transistor count.

Memory technology also diverges. The P102-100 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 50HX uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on the same 320-bit bus width, achieving 560.0 GB/s — a 27% bandwidth advantage. Memory clocks differ as well: the P102-100 runs at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective), while the CMP 50HX runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute feature sets reflect the architectural generational gap. The CMP 50HX adds 56 ray-tracing cores and 448 tensor cores — features entirely absent from the P102-100. The CMP 50HX also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the P102-100 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, and both have no display outputs.

The shading unit counts are closer than the transistor gap suggests: the CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units versus 3200 for the P102-100. However, the P102-100 has more texture mapping units (200 vs 192) while both have exactly 80 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The CMP 50HX wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its geekbench_opencl score of 56135 versus the P102-100’s 49602 represents an 11.6% advantage. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput (11.07 TFLOPS vs 10.77 TFLOPS) and dramatically better FP16 performance — the CMP 50HX delivers 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the P102-100 manages only 168.3 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. For any workload using half-precision arithmetic, the CMP 50HX is overwhelmingly superior.

The CMP 50HX also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 10 GB frame buffer doubles the P102-100’s 5 GB, and its 560.0 GB/s bandwidth outpaces the P102-100’s 440.3 GB/s by 27%. For mining workloads with large working sets or OpenCL kernels that stream data heavily, this is a meaningful advantage.

The P102-100 wins in Vulkan performance by a massive margin. Its geekbench_vulkan score of 67454 crushes the CMP 50HX’s 47445 — a 42.2% lead. The P102-100 also has higher clock speeds: 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost, versus 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost for the CMP 50HX. The P102-100’s pixel rate (134.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (336.6 GTexel/s) also exceed the CMP 50HX’s figures (123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s, respectively).

The P102-100’s average benchmark score of 58528 places it well above the CMP 50HX’s 51790, and its 88th percentile ranking versus 86th confirms it sits higher in the overall GPU distribution. The P102-100’s nearest rival (AMD Radeon PRO V710) is essentially tied at -0.2%, while the CMP 50HX’s nearest rival (AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT) trails by 1.6%.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA P102-100 has a higher average benchmark score of 58528 compared to the CMP 50HX’s 51790, and it ranks in the 88th percentile of all GPUs versus the CMP 50HX’s 86th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The CMP 50HX wins geekbench_opencl with a score of 56135, which is 11.6% higher than the P102-100’s 49602.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The P102-100 dominates in geekbench_vulkan, scoring 67454 versus the CMP 50HX’s 47445 — a 42.2% advantage.

Q: Do these cards have different memory configurations?

A: Yes. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the P102-100 has 5 GB of GDDR5X with 440.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 320-bit bus.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The P102-100 uses Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process with the GP102 chip, while the CMP 50HX uses Turing architecture on a 12 nm process with the TU102 chip. The CMP 50HX adds 56 ray-tracing cores and 448 tensor cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Q: Are there any similarities between the two cards?

A: Both cards have 80 ROPs, a 250 W TDP, dual-slot designs, 2x 8-pin power connectors, a 600 W suggested PSU, PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, no display outputs, and identical 267 mm (10.5 inches) lengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The geekbench_vulkan test produces the single largest performance gap between these two cards. The P102-100 scores 67454, which is 42.2% higher than the CMP 50HX’s 47445. This is a substantial margin that suggests the Pascal architecture’s higher clock speeds (1582 MHz base, 1683 MHz boost) and superior pixel/texture throughput translate directly into Vulkan compute efficiency. The P102-100’s 134.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and 336.6 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the CMP 50HX’s 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s, respectively, reinforcing this advantage.

In geekbench_opencl, the tables turn. The CMP 50HX scores 56135 versus the P102-100’s 49602, an 11.6% lead. This aligns with the CMP 50HX’s higher shading unit count (3584 vs 3200) and its FP32 throughput of 11.07 TFLOPS versus 10.77 TFLOPS. The CMP 50HX’s FP16 capability is in another league entirely — 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus the P102-100’s 168.3 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio — which likely contributes to its OpenCL advantage in mixed-precision workloads.

The head-to-head record is split at one win apiece. However, the magnitude of the wins is asymmetric: the P102-100’s Vulkan win is 42.2%, while the CMP 50HX’s OpenCL win is 11.6%. If we weight by margin, the P102-100’s victory is far more decisive in its winning test. The P102-100’s average benchmark score of 58528 also exceeds the CMP 50HX’s 51790 by approximately 13%, and its nearest rivals (AMD Radeon PRO V710 at -0.2%, AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 0.2%) are closer than the CMP 50HX’s nearest rivals (AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 1.6%, AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 3.6%).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The process node shifts from 16 nm (P102-100) to 12 nm (CMP 50HX), with transistor counts rising from 11,800 million to 18,600 million and die size growing from 471 mm² to 754 mm². Transistor density remains nearly constant at 25.1M vs 24.7M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the P102-100: 1582 MHz base and 1683 MHz boost versus 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost for the CMP 50HX. Memory clocks also differ, with the P102-100 at 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) and the CMP 50HX at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory size doubles from 5 GB to 10 GB, and bandwidth increases from 440.3 GB/s to 560.0 GB/s, though both use a 320-bit bus and GDDR-type memory (GDDR5X vs GDDR6).

Compute unit counts vary: the CMP 50HX has more shading units (3584 vs 3200) but fewer TMUs (192 vs 200), with identical ROP counts (80). The CMP 50HX uniquely adds 56 ray-tracing cores and 448 tensor cores. Pixel and texture rates favor the P102-100 (134.6 GPixel/s and 336.6 GTexel/s vs 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s), while FP32 is nearly even (10.77 vs 11.07 TFLOPS). FP16 performance is drastically different: 168.3 GFLOPS (1:64) for the P102-100 versus 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) for the CMP 50HX.

API support differs only in DirectX version: 12 (12_1) for the P102-100 versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the CMP 50HX. Physical dimensions are identical in length (267 mm / 10.5 inches); the CMP 50HX adds specified height (116 mm / 4.6 inches) and width (35 mm / 1.4 inches) measurements. Both cards share 250 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin power connectors, 600 W suggested PSU, PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, and no display outputs. Release dates differ significantly: the P102-100 launched in February 2018, while the CMP 50HX arrived in June 2021.