NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous in this comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins both recorded tests, and in the Vulkan workload, it wins by a dominant margin. The average benchmark score for the Quadro P6000 is 69,986, which places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The CMP 50HX, by contrast, averages 51,790, sitting in the 86th percentile. That is a 35.1% difference in average score, a gap that is difficult to overstate.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P6000 scores 66,382, while the CMP 50HX scores 56,135. The delta is 18.3%, meaning the Quadro is nearly a fifth faster in raw compute throughput for this workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive one. OpenCL is a cross-vendor API, so this result reflects general compute capability rather than any proprietary advantage.

The Vulkan test is where the separation becomes extreme. The Quadro P6000 posts 73,590, while the CMP 50HX manages only 47,445. That is a 55.1% advantage for the Quadro. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the result indicates that the Quadro handles the workload with far greater efficiency. The CMP 50HX, despite being a newer architecture, falls far behind here. This is likely due to its lack of display outputs and its design focus, which the data suggests does not translate into general-purpose or graphics benchmark strength.

It is worth contextualizing these scores against the nearest rivals in the database. The Quadro P6000's average score of 69,986 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, which averages 69,870. It is also within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140) and 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). The only rival it clearly beats is the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, which averages 69,000, a 1.4% gap. This places the Quadro in a tight cluster of high-end workstation and enthusiast cards, all within a couple of percent of each other. The CMP 50HX, however, sits in a different league. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50,951, which is 1.6% behind the CMP. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is 3.6% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is 3.7% behind, and the Intel Arc A550M is 4.1% behind. The CMP 50HX is the top of its own lower tier, but that tier is over 18,000 points below the Quadro's average. In short, the Quadro P6000 is not just ahead of the CMP 50HX; it is in a different performance class entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69,986, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX averages 51,790. The Quadro is 35.1% higher on average.

Q: How large is the gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the CMP 50HX scores 47,445. The Quadro is 55.1% ahead in this test.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX win any of the recorded benchmarks?

A: No. The recorded data shows the Quadro P6000 winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The win count is 2 for the Quadro and 0 for the CMP 50HX.

Q: How does the CMP 50HX compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CMP 50HX's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, which is 1.6% behind. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is 3.6% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is 3.7% behind, and the Intel Arc A550M is 4.1% behind. It leads its immediate group but remains far below the Quadro's tier.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro P6000 has a memory bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s, while the CMP 50HX has 560.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX has the higher bandwidth, despite having less memory and a narrower bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The CMP 50HX has 18,600 million transistors, while the Quadro P6000 has 11,800 million. The CMP 50HX has 57.6% more transistors, but this does not translate into benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip, based on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 471 mm², and it packs 11,800 million transistors. The transistor density is 25.1M per mm². The CMP 50HX, by contrast, uses the TU102 chip, based on the Turing architecture, on a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. Its die is substantially larger at 754 mm², holding 18,600 million transistors. The density is slightly lower at 24.7M per mm², which makes sense given the larger die and newer node.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding 560.0 GB/s. So the CMP 50HX has nearly 30% more bandwidth, but only 42% of the capacity. The memory clock is also different: the Quadro runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the CMP runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The CMP's higher memory clock drives its bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources are where the Quadro pulls ahead. The Quadro has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The CMP 50HX has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The Quadro has 7.1% more shading units, 25% more TMUs, and 20% more ROPs. This explains its higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 394.8 GTexel/s versus 296.6 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Quadro delivers 12.63 TFLOPS, while the CMP delivers 11.07 TFLOPS, a 14.1% gap.

The architectures diverge in feature sets. The CMP 50HX includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, which are Turing-specific features for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The Quadro P6000 has neither, as Pascal predates those capabilities. However, the CMP's FP16 performance is 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro's FP16 is only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This means the CMP 50HX is massively ahead in half-precision workloads, a feature that matters for certain AI and compute tasks, but it does not show up in the recorded OpenCL or Vulkan benchmarks.

The API support also differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the CMP supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP's newer API support reflects its Turing lineage, but the benchmark data shows that this does not translate into better Vulkan performance in practice.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most use cases: the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the superior GPU. It wins both recorded benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, versus the CMP 50HX's 86th percentile. The Quadro is 18.3% ahead in OpenCL and 55.1% ahead in Vulkan. These are not small margins; they are categorical advantages.

The Quadro's strengths are in raw shading throughput, texture processing, and pixel output. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher clock speeds. Its FP32 performance is higher, which matters for general compute and graphics work. It also has 24 GB of memory, which is more than double the CMP's 10 GB, making it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The CMP 50HX, however, is not without its own merits. It has higher memory bandwidth at 560.0 GB/s, which is useful for memory-bound operations. It also has RT cores and tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. Its FP16 performance is dramatically better, at 22.15 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS. For workloads that rely on half-precision compute, such as certain machine learning inference tasks, the CMP 50HX is the better tool. But those workloads are not represented in the recorded benchmarks, where the CMP loses decisively.

The verdict is straightforward. For general graphics, workstation tasks, and standard compute, the Quadro P6000 is the clear winner. The CMP 50HX is a niche product, and the data shows that its niche does not include the benchmarks that matter most to typical users. The CMP 50HX should be chosen only if the workload specifically demands its unique features, such as tensor cores or high FP16 throughput, and if the user can accept its lack of display outputs and its lower overall benchmark performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is different: 16 nm for the Quadro, 12 nm for the CMP. The transistor count is 11,800 million for the Quadro versus 18,600 million for the CMP. The die size is 471 mm² versus 754 mm². The transistor density is 25.1M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Clock speeds differ. The Quadro has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The CMP has a base clock of 1350 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. The Quadro is clocked higher in both cases. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the CMP runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP has less capacity but more bandwidth.

Compute units differ. The Quadro has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The CMP has 3,584 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The Quadro leads in all three categories. The CMP has 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores; the Quadro has none.

Pixel and texture rates differ. The Quadro produces 157.9 GPixel/s and 394.8 GTexel/s. The CMP produces 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 12.63 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 11.07 TFLOPS for the CMP. FP16 performance is 197.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 22.15 TFLOPS for the CMP.

Power and physical characteristics are similar in some ways. Both have a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. Both are dual-slot and 267 mm long. The Quadro is 111 mm tall, while the CMP is 116 mm tall. The CMP is 35 mm wide; the Quadro's width is not specified. The Quadro uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the CMP uses two 8-pin connectors.

The bus interface differs. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the CMP uses PCIe 1.0 x4. This is a significant difference, as the CMP's interface is far more limited for data transfer. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the CMP has no outputs at all. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the CMP supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The release dates are far apart. The Quadro was released on 2016-09-30, while the CMP was released on 2021-06-23. The Quadro had a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD; the CMP has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins in every recorded benchmark, but the data also suggests where each card is strongest based on their specifications. The Quadro wins in OpenCL by 18.3% and in Vulkan by 55.1%. Its higher shading unit count, TMU count, ROP count, and clock speeds drive these results. It is the better choice for any workload that relies on rasterization, pixel processing, or general FP32 compute. Its 24 GB memory capacity also makes it suitable for tasks that require large memory footprints, such as high-resolution rendering or large model training.

The CMP 50HX, despite losing both benchmarks, has areas where it is objectively superior. Its memory bandwidth of 560.0 GB/s is 29.4% higher than the Quadro's 432.8 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, such as certain data processing tasks, this could be an advantage. Its FP16 performance of 22.15 TFLOPS is over 100 times higher than the Quadro's 197.4 GFLOPS. This makes it suitable for half-precision compute, which is common in AI inference and some scientific simulations. Its 448 tensor cores are designed for tensor operations, and its 56 RT cores are designed for ray tracing. The Quadro has neither of these features.

The CMP 50HX also has a higher transistor count, but this does not translate into benchmark performance. Its lack of display outputs means it cannot be used for any visual output, making it unsuitable for desktop use or workstation graphics. The Quadro, with its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x DVI, is fully capable of driving multiple monitors.

The use-case split is clear. The Quadro P6000 is the choice for graphics professionals, workstation users, and anyone who needs strong general compute and display output. The CMP 50HX is the choice for specialized compute tasks that leverage its tensor cores, RT cores, or high FP16 throughput, and only when display output is not required. For everything else, the recorded data shows the Quadro P6000 as the superior product.