NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA Tesla T4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the two measured compute workloads. The NVIDIA Tesla T4 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, taking 2 wins against 0 for the NVIDIA CMP 50HX. The margin in each test, however, tells a different story about where each card's strengths lie.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla T4 scores 61276 against 56135 for the CMP 50HX. That is a 9.2% advantage for the T4. The CMP 50HX stays competitive in this workload, but it is still decisively behind. A 9.2% delta is a solid, repeatable margin, but it is not a rout.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is a completely different picture. The Tesla T4 scores 72190, while the CMP 50HX scores 47445. The T4 is 52.2% ahead. That is a massive gap. The CMP 50HX, despite its higher raw compute specifications, falls far behind in the Vulkan API. The T4's advantage in this test is more than five times larger than its advantage in OpenCL. This suggests the T4's architectural features are far better utilized under Vulkan's execution model.

Looking at the broader database context, the T4's average benchmark score is 66733, placing it at the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The CMP 50HX averages 51790, sitting at the 86th percentile. The T4's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon VII at 66004 (1.1% behind the T4) and the NVIDIA Tesla P40 at 65095 (2.5% behind). The CMP 50HX's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT at 50951 (1.6% behind the CMP 50HX) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49957 (3.7% behind). The percentile gap, 90 versus 86, reflects the T4's higher average score, and the head-to-head deltas confirm that gap is consistent across both tested APIs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Turing architecture using TSMC's 12 nm process, but they are very different silicon implementations. The Tesla T4 uses the TU104 chip with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. The CMP 50HX uses the larger TU102 chip with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 25.0M per mm² for the T4 versus 24.7M per mm² for the CMP 50HX. The CMP 50HX simply has more silicon area dedicated to compute resources.

The CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. The Tesla T4 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The CMP 50HX also has more ray tracing cores, 56 versus 40, and more tensor cores, 448 versus 320. These are substantial hardware differences. The CMP 50HX should, in theory, offer higher peak throughput.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The T4 has a base clock of 585 MHz and a boost clock of 1590 MHz. The CMP 50HX has a much higher base clock of 1350 MHz, but its boost clock is slightly lower at 1545 MHz. The CMP 50HX's base clock is over 2.3 times higher than the T4's base clock, but the boost clocks are close. This indicates the T4 relies on a wider boost range, likely related to its power envelope.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The Tesla T4 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 560.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX has less capacity but a wider bus and much higher bandwidth, 75% more than the T4. The memory clock is also different: 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for the T4 versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the CMP 50HX.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts. The T4 produces 101.8 GPixel/s and 254.4 GTexel/s. The CMP 50HX produces 123.6 GPixel/s and 296.6 GTexel/s. The CMP 50HX is ahead by 21.4% in pixel rate and 16.6% in texture rate. FP32 compute is 8.141 TFLOPS for the T4 and 11.07 TFLOPS for the CMP 50HX, a 36% advantage for the CMP 50HX. FP16 rates are 16.28 TFLOPS and 22.15 TFLOPS respectively, again favoring the CMP 50HX.

The power and physical characteristics are starkly different. The T4 is a 70 W single-slot card with no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is 168 mm long (6.6 inches). The CMP 50HX is a 250 W dual-slot card requiring two 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. It is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), 116 mm high (4.6 inches), and 35 mm wide (1.4 inches). The CMP 50HX draws over 3.5 times the power of the T4.

Both cards have no display outputs. The bus interface differs: the T4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. This is a notable limitation for the CMP 50HX, as its host interface bandwidth is drastically lower. The T4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 50HX supports the same API set, so software compatibility is identical.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla T4 wins both recorded benchmarks, so its position is clear in the database. It is ahead by 9.2% in OpenCL and by 52.2% in Vulkan. The Vulkan result is the standout. The T4's architecture, with its lower raw compute but better API utilization, delivers a dominant result in that workload. The T4 also offers 16 GB of memory, which is 60% more capacity than the CMP 50HX's 10 GB. For workloads that need to hold larger datasets on the GPU, the T4 has a clear advantage.

The T4's power profile is a major differentiator. At 70 W with no external power connectors, it can be deployed in systems with minimal power headroom. The CMP 50HX requires 250 W and two 8-pin connectors. The T4 is also a single-slot, shorter card, which makes it easier to fit into dense server configurations. The CMP 50HX is dual-slot and significantly longer.

The CMP 50HX wins on raw compute specifications. It has 36% higher FP32 throughput, 75% higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, and more tensor cores. In workloads where those raw resources translate directly to performance, and where the API overhead does not penalize it, the CMP 50HX should be faster. The database does not include a test that captures this, but the architectural data points strongly in that direction.

The CMP 50HX also has a higher base clock, 1350 MHz versus 585 MHz. This means it maintains a high minimum performance level without relying on boost behavior. The T4's base clock is very low, so its performance under sustained load depends heavily on boost clock sustainability.

The bus interface is a critical differentiator. The CMP 50HX is limited to PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an older and narrower interface. This constrains data transfer between the CPU and GPU. The T4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which offers substantially higher host bandwidth. For workloads that involve frequent data movement to and from the GPU, the T4's interface is a significant advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla T4 has an average benchmark score of 66733, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX averages 51790. The T4 is 28.9% higher.

Q: How does the Tesla T4 compare to the CMP 50HX in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Tesla T4 scores 72190 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the CMP 50HX scores 47445. The T4 is 52.2% ahead in this test.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Tesla T4 has a TDP of 70 W and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The CMP 50HX has a TDP of 250 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The CMP 50HX has 560.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Tesla T4 has 320.0 GB/s. The CMP 50HX offers 75% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Tesla T4 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory. The T4 has 60% more memory capacity.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The CMP 50HX has 3584 shading units, while the Tesla T4 has 2560 shading units. The CMP 50HX has 40% more shading units.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload requirements. For general compute and API-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA Tesla T4 is the superior choice. It wins both recorded benchmarks, with a particularly strong 52.2% margin in Vulkan. Its 16 GB memory capacity and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it better suited for tasks that require larger data residency and faster host communication. Its 70 W power envelope and single-slot form factor also make it far easier to deploy in power-constrained or space-constrained systems.

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is a card built for raw throughput. Its 11.07 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 560.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and higher core counts give it a theoretical advantage in compute-bound tasks that do not rely on API efficiency. However, the database measurements do not show this advantage translating into wins in the two recorded tests. The CMP 50HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a severe bottleneck for any workload that moves data frequently, and its 250 W power draw limits deployment options.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The T4 sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the CMP 50HX sits at the 86th percentile. The T4's nearest rivals are consistently within a few percent, while the CMP 50HX's nearest rivals are all below it, but by smaller margins than the T4's leads. The T4 is the more balanced, higher-performing card in the database's measurements.

For users who need a card that performs well across diverse compute workloads, supports modern APIs, and fits into low-power server slots, the Tesla T4 is the clear pick. For users who need maximum raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, and who can accommodate the larger power draw and physical size, the CMP 50HX offers the higher specification sheet. But based on the recorded benchmark data, the Tesla T4 is the winner in every measured test.