NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX leads with an average benchmark score of 51790, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 43262. That puts the CMP 50HX about 19.7% higher overall.

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

A: The CMP 50HX scores 56135 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 40098 for the Quadro M6000 24 GB. That is a 40% advantage for the CMP 50HX.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap as large as the OpenCL gap?

A: No, it is much smaller. The CMP 50HX scores 47445 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46425, a difference of only 2.2%.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5, while the CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6. Despite the smaller capacity, the CMP 50HX has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 560.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The CMP 50HX is built on TSMC's 12 nm process, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB uses TSMC's 28 nm process. The newer node allows the CMP 50HX to pack 18,600 million transistors into a die of 754 mm², whereas the Quadro uses 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The CMP 50HX leads with 123.6 GPixel/s, compared to 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro M6000 24 GB. The Quadro does have more ROPs (96 versus 80), but the CMP 50HX's higher clocks overcome that.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is built on the Turing architecture using the TU102 chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip. The CMP 50HX is part of NVIDIA's Mining GPUs generation and was released in 2021; the Quadro M6000 24 GB belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation and was released in 2016.

Manufacturing technology separates them clearly. The CMP 50HX uses a 12 nm TSMC process, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB uses a 28 nm TSMC process. That process advantage lets the CMP 50HX pack far more transistors: 18,600 million versus 8,000 million. The die size is also larger on the CMP 50HX at 754 mm², compared to 601 mm² on the Quadro. Transistor density reflects this, with 24.7M per mm² on the CMP 50HX versus 13.3M per mm² on the Quadro.

The compute resources differ substantially. The CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, features that the Quadro M6000 24 GB lacks entirely. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The shading unit count favors the CMP 50HX by about 16.7%, while the Quadro holds a 20% ROP advantage.

Clock speeds are much higher on the CMP 50HX. It runs at 1350 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. That clock advantage drives the CMP 50HX's higher throughput numbers.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320 bit bus, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), producing 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, with memory at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), yielding 317.4 GB/s. Although the Quadro has more capacity and a wider bus, the CMP 50HX delivers about 76.5% more bandwidth.

API support also differs. The CMP 50HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 24 GB is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical design show both cards are dual-slot. The CMP 50HX requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB needs only 1x 8-pin. Both have a 250 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The CMP 50HX measures 267 mm long, 116 mm high, and 35 mm wide; the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with no recorded width. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The bus interface also differs, with the CMP 50HX using PCIe 1.0 x4 and the Quadro using PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins both recorded head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL by 40% and Geekbench Vulkan by 2.2%. Its average benchmark score of 51790 places it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB sits in the 83rd percentile with an average of 43262.

The CMP 50HX is the better choice for anyone prioritizing compute throughput. Its 11.07 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is roughly 61.8% higher than the Quadro's 6.844 TFLOPS. It also has double the FP16 capability at 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the Quadro has no recorded FP16 performance. The 448 tensor cores and 56 RT cores give the CMP 50HX hardware acceleration options that the Quadro cannot match.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB has one clear advantage: memory capacity. With 24 GB versus 10 GB, it can hold larger datasets in VRAM. However, that capacity comes with much lower bandwidth, 317.4 GB/s versus 560.0 GB/s. For workloads that need large working sets but not extreme bandwidth, the Quadro has a purpose. It also has display outputs, which the CMP 50HX completely lacks, making the Quadro usable in a workstation with monitors attached.

The CMP 50HX is an end-of-life mining product with no display outputs, so it only makes sense in a compute-only context. The Quadro M6000 24 GB is also end-of-life, but it remains a functional workstation card with display support. For compute density, the CMP 50HX is the stronger choice. For capacity-limited workloads or any task requiring video output, the Quadro is the only option of the two.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Field | NVIDIA CMP 50HX | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Mining GPUs | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1350 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1545 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 10 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 560.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 3072 |

| ROPs | 80 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 56 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 448 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 123.6 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 296.6 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 11.07 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Height | 116 mm (4.6 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | null |

| Release Date | 2021-06-23 | 2016-06-23 | 2016-03-04 |

| Predecessor | null | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | null | Quadro Pascal |

| Launch MSRP | null | 4,999 USD |

Fields not listed above, such as TMUs (192 on both cards), TDP (250 W on both cards), slot width (dual-slot on both), and suggested PSU (600 W on both cards), are identical between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA CMP 50HX and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB. The CMP 50HX wins both, giving it 2 wins in the head-to-head category.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest gap of the pair. The CMP 50HX scores 56135, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098, a delta of 40% in favor of the CMP 50HX. This result is consistent with the raw compute specifications, where the CMP 50HX leads heavily in FP32 and FP32 throughput metrics. The OpenCL score places the CMP 50HX about 40% ahead of the Quadro in this workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is much closer. The CMP 50HX scores 47445 versus 46425 on the Quadro, a 2.2% margin of victory. This suggests the two cards are nearly equivalent in this specific workload, despite their architectural differences. The same test suite rewards the newer architecture only modestly here.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the CMP 50HX's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT with an average score of 50951 (1.6% behind the CMP 50HX), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 at 50001 (3.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49957 (3.7% behind), and the Intel Arc A550M at 49737 (4.1% behind). The CMP 50HX sits just ahead of a cluster of high-end GPUs.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB's nearest rivals paint a different picture. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile scores 43268 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 without the 24 GB designation scores 43301 (0.1% ahead of the 24 GB model, or -0.1% delta from the database's perspective), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER scores 43223 (0.1% behind or 0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 43667 (0.9% ahead of the Quadro). The 24 GB Quadro model essentially matches these modern GPUs.

The texture rate difference helps explain part of the OpenCL gap. The CMP 50HX delivers 296.6 GTexel/s of texture fill, while the Quadro manages 213.9 GTexel/s. Combined with the FP32 advantage, the CMP 50HX has a clear throughput lead. The Quadro's only recorded win is in ROP count, 96 versus 80, but that does not translate into a benchmark victory in the recorded data.

The average benchmark score difference of 51790 versus 43262 represents a 19.7% advantage for the CMP 50HX. This aligns with the percentile rankings, where the CMP 50HX reaches the 86th percentile of all GPUs and the Quadro reaches the 83rd. The CMP 50HX is the faster card overall, but the Vulkan result shows the Quadro is not obsolete in every scenario.