NVIDIA CMP 50HX vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal records an average benchmark score of 72,098, while the NVIDIA CMP 50HX sits at 51,790. That places the TITAN X Pascal in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, versus the 86th percentile for the CMP 50HX.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The TITAN X Pascal wins both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 66,696 against 56,135, a lead of 18.8%. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 77,499 against 47,445, a lead of 63.3%.

Q: Why does the CMP 50HX have a lower average score despite similar FP32 throughput?

A: The CMP 50HX does have slightly higher FP32 peak compute at 11.07 TFLOPS versus 10.97 TFLOPS, but its Vulkan result is far weaker. The database shows a 63.3% deficit in Vulkan, which drags its average down substantially.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 480.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 50HX has more bandwidth despite less capacity.

Q: Do both cards have the same power draw?

A: Yes, both are rated at 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W. However, the TITAN X Pascal uses a single 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, while the CMP 50HX requires two 8-pin connectors.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card in the database?

A: For the TITAN X Pascal, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is 0.4% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 6650M is 0.5% behind, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE is 1.8% behind, and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is 1.7% ahead. For the CMP 50HX, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 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.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal as the stronger overall performer in the benchmark database. Its average score of 72,098 is 39.2% above the CMP 50HX's 51,790. In both head-to-head tests, the TITAN X Pascal comes out ahead, with particularly dramatic dominance in Vulkan where it leads by 63.3%. Any workload that relies heavily on Vulkan rendering will strongly favor the older Pascal card.

The TITAN X Pascal also offers more memory at 12 GB versus 10 GB, a wider 384-bit bus versus 320-bit, and a higher 96 ROP count versus 80. It has more TMUs as well, 224 versus 192. Those hardware differences translate into measurable advantages in the recorded scores.

The CMP 50HX is not without merit. It has higher memory bandwidth at 560.0 GB/s versus 480.4 GB/s, higher boost clock at 1545 MHz versus 1531 MHz, and it introduces Turing features such as 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compared to the TITAN X Pascal's DirectX 12 (12_1). For compute workloads that use tensor cores or ray tracing, the CMP 50HX has capabilities the Pascal card simply lacks.

However, the CMP 50HX has no display outputs, which limits its use to mining or headless compute environments. The TITAN X Pascal provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The CMP 50HX also uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which severely constrains data transfer compared to the TITAN X Pascal's PCIe 3.0 x16 connection.

Who should pick which: anyone needing a general-purpose GPU with display support, higher memory capacity, and better benchmark scores should choose the TITAN X Pascal. Anyone who specifically needs Turing architecture features, higher memory bandwidth, or a mining-focused design with no display outputs should consider the CMP 50HX. The TITAN X Pascal is the better buy for most applications based on the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded tests show a consistent winner. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 against the CMP 50HX's 56,135. That is an 18.8% advantage for the Pascal card. This margin is significant but not overwhelming. It suggests that in OpenCL compute workloads, the TITAN X Pascal's larger ROP count and wider memory bus provide a real edge, though the CMP 50HX's higher FP32 peak and faster memory bandwidth narrow the gap.

The Vulkan test is a different story entirely. The TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499, while the CMP 50HX manages only 47,445. The 63.3% delta is the largest in either direction across the recorded benchmarks. This is a decisive result. The CMP 50HX, despite being a newer Turing architecture with tensor and RT cores, underperforms dramatically in Vulkan. The database shows no Vulkan-specific test where the CMP 50HX comes close to the Pascal card.

Looking at the rivals, the TITAN X Pascal's nearest competitors cluster tightly around its average score. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is just 0.4% ahead at 72,379. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M is 0.5% behind at 71,768. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE trails by 1.8% at 70,829, and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition leads by 1.7% at 73,370. This grouping indicates the TITAN X Pascal sits in a competitive band where small margins separate cards.

The CMP 50HX's rivals are all behind it, but not by much. The AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT trails by 1.6% with an average score of 50,951. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is 3.6% behind at 50,001. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is 3.7% behind at 49,957. The Intel Arc A550M is 4.1% behind at 49,737. The CMP 50HX leads its nearest rivals, but the margins are modest, and its average score of 51,790 is far below the TITAN X Pascal's.

The gap in average scores, 72,098 versus 51,790, represents a 39.2% difference. No interpretation of the data can close that chasm. The TITAN X Pascal wins both recorded tests, and its wins include one by a landslide margin. The CMP 50HX's only statistical comfort is that its nearest rival, the RX 6900 XT, sits just 1.6% lower, meaning it holds its own in its own performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip, while the CMP 50HX uses the TU102 chip. The TITAN X Pascal is built on a 16 nm process, the CMP 50HX on a 12 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC. Transistor counts differ sharply: 11,800 million for the TITAN X Pascal versus 18,600 million for the CMP 50HX. Die size also differs, 471 mm² versus 754 mm², though transistor density is nearly identical at 25.1M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Clock speeds show the CMP 50HX with a lower base clock of 1350 MHz versus 1417 MHz, but a slightly higher boost clock of 1545 MHz versus 1531 MHz. Memory clocks diverge significantly: the TITAN X Pascal runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the CMP 50HX runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and type differ: 12 GB of GDDR5X versus 10 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 384-bit versus 320-bit. Bandwidth favors the CMP 50HX at 560.0 GB/s versus 480.4 GB/s. The TITAN X Pascal has 3584 shading units, matching the CMP 50HX's 3584, but the TITAN X Pascal has 224 TMUs versus 192, and 96 ROPs versus 80.

Pixel rate favors the TITAN X Pascal at 147.0 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors it at 342.9 GTexel/s versus 296.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is nearly even, 10.97 TFLOPS versus 11.07 TFLOPS, slightly favoring the CMP 50HX. FP16 is a major divergence: the TITAN X Pascal delivers only 171.5 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the CMP 50HX delivers 22.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Power connectors differ: 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin for the TITAN X Pascal, 2x 8-pin for the CMP 50HX. Both have a 250 W TDP and suggest a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with lengths of 267 mm, but the TITAN X Pascal is 112 mm tall and 40 mm wide, while the CMP 50HX is 116 mm tall and 35 mm wide.

Bus interface is a major difference: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the TITAN X Pascal, PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 50HX. Display outputs exist only on the TITAN X Pascal, which has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The CMP 50HX has no outputs. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), but both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates differ by years: the TITAN X Pascal launched on 2016-08-01, the CMP 50HX on 2021-06-23. The TITAN X Pascal has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, while the CMP 50HX has no recorded launch MSRP. The TITAN X Pascal lists a predecessor (GeForce 900) and successor (GeForce 20), while the CMP 50HX has neither.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The TITAN X Pascal is built on the Pascal architecture, which is a GeForce 10 generation product. The CMP 50HX is built on Turing, categorized under Mining GPUs. Pascal uses a 16 nm TSMC process with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. Turing uses a 12 nm TSMC process with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die.

The most significant functional difference is the presence of Turing-specific compute blocks. The CMP 50HX includes 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the TITAN X Pascal. These cores enable ray tracing and tensor-based workloads, respectively, and they explain the massive FP16 advantage for the CMP 50HX, 22.15 TFLOPS versus 171.5 GFLOPS, a 128-fold difference in raw FP16 throughput.

TMU and ROP counts also reflect architectural priorities. The TITAN X Pascal has 224 TMUs and 96 ROPs, higher than the CMP 50HX's 192 TMUs and 80 ROPs. Texture fill rate follows suit, 342.9 GTexel/s for Pascal over 296.6 GTexel/s for Turing. Pixel fill rate, 147.0 GPixel/s versus 123.6 GPixel/s, also favors Pascal.

The memory subsystem reflects a design trade-off between bandwidth and capacity. The CMP 50HX uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective on a 560.0 GB/s bus, while the TITAN X Pascal uses GDDR5X at 10 Gbps effective on 480. A wider memory bus gives the TITAN X Pascal more bandwidth per clock cycle, 480.4 GB/s total.

API support shows Turing's forward-looking features. The CMP 50HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a higher tier than the TITAN X Pascal's DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6. The TITAN X Pascal provides display outputs for multiple monitors, while the CMP 50HX has none. The CMP 50HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface versus the TITAN X Pascal's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface indicates a different intended use case, one where bandwidth to the host system is not prioritized.

The TITAN X Pascal sits in a lineage that includes a predecessor (GeForce 900) and successor (GeForce 20). The CMP 50HX has no listed predecessor or successor, existing as an isolated mining-oriented product. The production status for both is end-of-life, but they represent different eras of NVIDIA's roadmap: one from the Pascal era of 2016, one from the Turing era of 2021.