NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA RTX A6000 Comparison

# NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA RTX A6000

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX and NVIDIA RTX A6000 represent two divergent branches of NVIDIA's product tree, yet both share the TU102/GA102 silicon lineage. The CMP 50HX is a Turing-based mining card stripped of display outputs, while the RTX A6000 is an Ampere workstation powerhouse with 48 GB of memory. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the RTX A6000 dominates decisively, posting a 71.1% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL (193,937 vs. 56,135) and a 71.2% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan (164,462 vs. 47,445). These are not marginal victories; the A6000 nearly triples the CMP 50HX's raw compute output in both APIs, a gap that reflects fundamental architectural and specification differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the clearest indicator of the performance chasm between these two cards. The RTX A6000 scores 193,937, while the CMP 50HX manages 56,135. That delta of -71.1% for the CMP 50HX means the A6000 delivers roughly 3.45 times the OpenCL throughput. This is not a subtle advantage—it is a generational leap expressed in benchmark terms. The A6000's Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, provides 10,752 shading units compared to the CMP 50HX's 3,584. Even accounting for clock differences—the A6000 boosts to 1800 MHz versus the CMP 50HX's 1545 MHz—the sheer shader count advantage drives this outcome.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a nearly identical story. The A6000 posts 164,462 against the CMP 50HX's 47,445, a -71.2% delta. The consistency between OpenCL and Vulkan results suggests the performance gap is not API-specific but rather a reflection of raw hardware capability. The A6000's FP32 throughput of 38.71 TFLOPS versus the CMP 50HX's 11.07 TFLOPS—a 3.5x difference—aligns almost perfectly with the benchmark deltas. The texture rate follows suit: 604.8 GTexel/s for the A6000 versus 296.6 GTexel/s for the CMP 50HX, though the gap there is narrower at roughly 2x due to the CMP 50HX's higher TMU-to-shader ratio.

The CMP 50HX wins zero head-to-head benchmarks in this dataset. The RTX A6000 wins both. For context, the CMP 50HX's average benchmark score across all tests is 51,790, placing it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. The A6000's average is 44,075, which sits at the 84th percentile. This apparent paradox—the CMP 50HX having a higher average score and percentile despite losing both head-to-head tests—stems from the different benchmark suites each card was subjected to. The A6000's benchmark set includes Passmark tests (G2D, G3D, DX9-12, compute) where scores range from 87 to 22,577, dragging its average down. The CMP 50HX only has the two Geekbench results, both of which are relatively strong for its class.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A6000 wins in every scenario where compute throughput, memory capacity, or professional rendering matters. Its 48 GB of GDDR6 memory dwarfs the CMP 50HX's 10 GB, making it suitable for datasets that would exhaust the mining card's framebuffer in seconds. The A6000's memory bandwidth of 768.0 GB/s over a 384-bit bus provides 37% more bandwidth than the CMP 50HX's 560.0 GB/s on a 320-bit bus. For workloads like AI inference, scientific simulation, or large-scale 3D rendering, the A6000's advantages compound: more shaders, more RT cores (84 vs. 56), more tensor cores (336 vs. 448, though the CMP 50HX actually has more tensor cores in raw count, the A6000's Ampere tensor cores operate at different efficiency), and significantly higher memory capacity.

The CMP 50HX's only theoretical advantage lies in its mining-specific design. With no display outputs, it cannot be used for any visual workload. Its 10 GB memory and 250 W TDP make it a lower-power card than the A6000's 300 W, but that power savings is irrelevant for a card that cannot drive a monitor. The CMP 50HX does have a higher transistor density per square millimeter? No—it has 24.7M transistors per mm² versus the A6000's 45.1M per mm², but that's a process node artifact (12 nm vs. 8 nm), not a performance metric. In practical terms, the CMP 50HX is a niche product for cryptocurrency mining, a market that has since collapsed, while the A6000 remains a workstation staple.

For users needing DisplayPort outputs, the choice is unequivocal: the A6000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the CMP 50HX offers none. For raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the A6000's 3.5x advantage is insurmountable. The only scenario where the CMP 50HX might be considered is if power draw is the absolute priority and compute performance is secondary—but even then, the CMP 50HX's 250 W vs. A6000's 300 W is a modest saving that does not justify the massive performance deficit.

Architecture Differences

The CMP 50HX is built on the TU102 chip using NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7M per mm². The A6000 uses the GA102 chip with Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It contains 28,300 million transistors on a smaller 628 mm² die, achieving 45.1M per mm²—nearly double the density. This density improvement is the physical manifestation of the architectural leap between generations.

The A6000's FP16 performance is listed as 38.71 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not sacrifice throughput for half-precision. The CMP 50HX's FP16 is 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 is double its FP32 (11.07 TFLOPS). This suggests the A6000 is designed for workloads that use FP16 heavily without penalty, while the CMP 50HX's 2:1 ratio is typical of gaming-oriented Turing cards. The memory clock also differs: the A6000 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the CMP 50HX's 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The CMP 50HX has 448 tensor cores, which is more than the A6000's 336. However, tensor core counts alone do not determine AI performance—the Ampere tensor cores in the A6000 are more advanced, supporting sparsity and other features absent in Turing. The RT core counts favor the A6000 (84 vs. 56), and its pixel rate of 201.6 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s shows the A6000's rasterization advantage. The bus interface differs significantly: the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a bizarre limitation for a 2021 card, while the A6000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16—a 16x bandwidth difference that affects data transfer in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The most glaring specification gap is memory capacity: 48 GB on the A6000 versus 10 GB on the CMP 50HX. This 4.8x difference determines what workloads are feasible. The A6000's 384-bit bus (vs. 320-bit) and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth (vs. 560.0 GB/s) further separate them. Shading units: 10,752 vs. 3,584—a 3x difference. TMUs: 336 vs. 192. ROPs: 112 vs. 80. Boost clocks: 1800 MHz vs. 1545 MHz. Base clocks: 1410 MHz vs. 1350 MHz.

The A6000 has a higher TDP at 300 W versus the CMP 50HX's 250 W, and its power connector is a single 8-pin EPS rather than the CMP 50HX's 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 700 W for the A6000 versus 600 W for the CMP 50HX. The A6000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the CMP 50HX has no display outputs whatsoever. The A6000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. Physical dimensions are nearly identical: both are 267 mm in length, but the CMP 50HX is 116 mm tall and 35 mm wide, while the A6000 is 112 mm tall with no width specified.

The release dates differ by about eight months: the A6000 launched in October 2020, the CMP 50HX in June 2021. Both are end-of-life. The A6000's predecessor is Quadro Turing and successor is Workstation Ada, while the CMP 50HX has no listed predecessor or successor. The A6000's launch MSRP was 4,649 USD. The CMP 50HX has no launch MSRP listed, reflecting its mining-market positioning where prices fluctuated wildly.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The CMP 50HX has a higher average benchmark score of 51,790 compared to the A6000's 44,075, but this is due to different test suites. The A6000 includes Passmark tests with scores like 155 (DX10), 191 (DX11), and 87 (DX12), which lower its average. The CMP 50HX only has two Geekbench results, both above 47,000.

Q: What is the performance delta in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A6000 scores 193,937 versus the CMP 50HX's 56,135, a delta of -71.1% for the CMP 50HX. This means the A6000 is approximately 3.45 times faster in this benchmark.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The A6000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Q: Does either card support display outputs?

A: No. The CMP 50HX has no display outputs by design for mining use. The RTX A6000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for workstation visualization.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. The A6000 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The CMP 50HX has 448 tensor cores, while the A6000 has 336. However, the A6000's Ampere tensor cores are more advanced, and its FP16 performance is 38.71 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus the CMP 50HX's 22.15 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.