NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 and NVIDIA CMP 50HX represent two divergent paths from the same manufacturer, targeting entirely different workloads. The RTX A2000 is a workstation-focused card built on the Ampere architecture, while the CMP 50HX is a dedicated mining product based on the older Turing architecture. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the RTX A2000 wins both shared tests decisively, yet the CMP 50HX holds a higher aggregate score. This analysis examines where each card excels, what separates them architecturally, and who should choose which based strictly on the available numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous. The RTX A2000 wins both tests that both cards share. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 73310 against the CMP 50HX's 53411, a 37.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 69089 versus 44731, a 54.5% lead for the A2000. These are substantial margins, not marginal differences.

However, the aggregate picture tells a different story. The CMP 50HX has an average benchmark score of 49071, which places it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A2000 averages 47915, sitting in the 86th percentile. This means the CMP 50HX performs better across the broader benchmark suite it participates in, even though it loses every shared test. The CMP 50HX also sits closer to higher-end rivals: it trails the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT by only 1.8% and the Intel Arc A550M by 1.3%, while leading the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER by 0.8%.

The RTX A2000's wins are concentrated in compute and graphics APIs that favor its architecture. It leads the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile by 0.4% and the Intel Arc A530M by 2.8%, but trails the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER by 1.6% and the CMP 50HX by 2.4%. The data indicates the A2000 is a capable workstation part, but the CMP 50HX occupies a higher performance tier in aggregate terms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is fundamental. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, containing 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 18,600 million transistors spread across a massive 754 mm² die. The A2000 achieves a transistor density of 43.5M per mm², while the CMP 50HX manages only 24.7M per mm².

Clock speeds reverse the density advantage. The CMP 50HX runs at a base of 1350 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz, while the A2000 runs at just 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the CMP 50HX uses 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the A2000's 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus for 560.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the A2000 has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus for 288.0 GB/s.

Compute resources favor the CMP 50HX in raw counts. It has 3584 shading units, 192 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 448 tensor cores. The A2000 counters with 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 26 RT cores, and 104 tensor cores. The CMP 50HX also has a large lead in pixel rate (123.6 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (296.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput is 11.07 TFLOPS for the CMP 50HX versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the A2000. In FP16, the CMP 50HX reaches 22.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The CMP 50HX draws 250 W with two 8-pin connectors and requires a 600 W PSU. The A2000 draws just 70 W, needs no power connectors, and works with a 250 W PSU. The CMP 50HX is longer (267 mm versus 167 mm), taller (116 mm versus 69 mm), and has a defined width of 35 mm. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs, while the A2000 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, but the CMP 50HX is limited to PCIe 1.0 x4.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of labor. The RTX A2000 is the only choice for anyone needing display output, as the CMP 50HX has none. The A2000 also wins decisively in both shared benchmarks, suggesting better driver optimization or architectural efficiency for general compute tasks. Its 37.3% lead in OpenCL and 54.5% lead in Vulkan are too large to ignore.

The CMP 50HX justifies its existence through raw throughput. It has 38.6% more FP32 performance (11.07 versus 7.987 TFLOPS), 94.4% more bandwidth (560.0 versus 288.0 GB/s), and significantly higher pixel and texture rates. Its 10 GB memory capacity versus 6 GB also allows larger working sets. For workloads that are not bound by the PCIe 1.0 x4 interface or lack of display output, the CMP 50HX offers more compute headroom.

The aggregate benchmark scores reflect this: the CMP 50HX sits in the 87th percentile versus the A2000's 86th. The CMP 50HX also edges out the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER by 0.8%, while the A2000 trails that same card by 1.6%. Neither card is current — both are end-of-life — but they serve different masters. The A2000 is a workstation accelerator with visual output; the CMP 50HX is a compute-only mining card with no video paths.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has an average benchmark score of 49071, which is 2.4% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 47915.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 69089 versus the CMP 50HX's 44731, a 54.5% advantage.

Q: Does the CMP 50HX support display output?

A: No, the CMP 50HX has no display outputs, while the RTX A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, while the RTX A2000 has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus. The CMP 50HX's bandwidth is 560.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires a 250 W PSU with no power connectors. The CMP 50HX has a 250 W TDP, needs two 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The CMP 50HX has 18,600 million transistors on its TU102 chip, compared to the RTX A2000's 12,000 million on GA106.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite is limited to two tests, but the results are stark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 73310 against the CMP 50HX's 53411, a 37.3% delta. This is the card's larger win in absolute points: a gap of 19899. The Vulkan test shows an even bigger percentage gap. The A2000 hits 69089 while the CMP 50HX manages 44731, giving the A2000 a 54.5% lead and a 24358-point margin.

These results are particularly telling given the CMP 50HX's hardware advantages. The CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units versus 3328, 192 TMUs versus 104, 80 ROPs versus 48, and 56 RT cores versus 26. It also has a massive clock speed advantage: 1545 MHz boost versus 1200 MHz. Yet the A2000 still wins both tests by wide margins. This indicates the A2000's Ampere architecture and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provide efficiency that the CMP 50HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 bottleneck cannot overcome in these workloads.

The aggregate scores add context. The CMP 50HX's average of 49071 comes from a broader test set that includes results beyond the two shared benchmarks. Its 87th percentile ranking versus the A2000's 86th shows that in other tests, the CMP 50HX compensates for its losses here. The CMP 50HX also compares favorably to the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (0.8% ahead) and the Intel Arc A550M (1.3% behind), while the A2000 trails the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER by 1.6%. The head-to-head data favors the A2000, but the broader picture slightly favors the CMP 50HX.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The A2000 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with the GA106 chip, while the CMP 50HX uses a 12 nm TSMC process with the TU102 chip. Transistor counts are 12,000 million versus 18,600 million, and die sizes are 276 mm² versus 754 mm². Transistor density is 43.5M per mm² for the A2000 and 24.7M per mm² for the CMP 50HX.

Clock speeds favor the CMP 50HX: base 1350 MHz versus 562 MHz, boost 1545 MHz versus 1200 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Memory configuration differs in size (10 GB versus 6 GB), bus width (320-bit versus 192-bit), and bandwidth (560.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s).

Compute units all favor the CMP 50HX: shading units 3584 versus 3328, TMUs 192 versus 104, ROPs 80 versus 48, RT cores 56 versus 26, tensor cores 448 versus 104. Pixel rate is 123.6 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s, texture rate is 296.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 11.07 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 22.15 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specs diverge completely. The CMP 50HX draws 250 W with two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU recommendation; the A2000 draws 70 W with no connectors and a 250 W PSU. The CMP 50HX is 267 mm long, 116 mm tall, and 35 mm wide; the A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm tall. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs and uses PCIe 1.0 x4; the A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are dual-slot, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life.