NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 70HX is the clear performance leader in every recorded benchmark category. It wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, with a 23.4% advantage in OpenCL and a 10.3% advantage in Vulkan. This makes it the stronger choice for any compute-heavy workload that relies on raw GPU throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference tasks that use OpenCL or Vulkan APIs.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550, by contrast, does not win any benchmark in the database. Its scores are lower across the board, and it trails the CMP 70HX by a substantial margin. However, the MX550 is designed for a different purpose: it is a low-power, integrated-class GPU intended for portable devices. Its 25 W thermal design power and lack of power connectors mean it fits into thin laptops where the CMP 70HX, with its dual-slot footprint and 12-pin power connector, would never fit. In that sense, the MX550 wins on mobility and integration, even though it loses on raw performance.

For users who need a GPU that can be installed in a desktop system with a power supply rated at 200 W, the CMP 70HX is the obvious choice. It delivers over 10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and has 8 GB of high-bandwidth GDDR6X memory, making it suitable for tasks that require large memory footprints and fast memory transfers. The MX550, with only 2 GB of GDDR6 memory and a 64-bit bus, is limited to lighter workloads like basic photo editing, casual gaming, or general desktop acceleration.

In short, the CMP 70HX wins on every performance metric in the database, while the MX550 wins on power efficiency and portability, though those qualities are not directly benchmarked here.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 70HX has an average benchmark score of 30,476, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421. This places the CMP 70HX in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the MX550's 72nd percentile.

Q: How much faster is the CMP 70HX in OpenCL workloads?

A: The CMP 70HX scores 25,135 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.4% higher than the MX550's 20,372 in the same test.

Q: Does the MX550 support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: No. The MX550 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117SB chip, and it has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The CMP 70HX, based on Ampere with the GA104 chip, includes 30 ray tracing cores and 120 tensor cores.

Q: Can the MX550 be used in a desktop PC?

A: The MX550 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a form factor of "IGP" and no power connectors. It is intended for portable devices, and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The CMP 70HX has no display outputs at all, so neither card is a typical desktop graphics card in the conventional sense.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The CMP 70HX has a memory bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s, using 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. The MX550 has 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, using 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. This is a difference of over 500 GB/s in favor of the CMP 70HX.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The CMP 70HX delivers 10.71 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX550 delivers 2.703 TFLOPS. The CMP 70HX is roughly four times faster in this metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the CMP 70HX wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 70HX scores 25,135 against the MX550's 20,372, a delta of 23.4%. This is the larger margin of the two tests. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose GPU computing, so this result indicates that the CMP 70HX is significantly better at tasks like physics simulation, image processing, or any workload that can leverage the GPU's parallel compute units. The CMP 70HX has 3,840 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, while the MX550 has 1,024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The raw hardware advantage translates directly into a higher OpenCL score.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the CMP 70HX scores 35,817 versus the MX550's 32,469, a 10.3% margin. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics and compute API, often used in games and modern rendering engines. The smaller delta here suggests that the MX550's Turing architecture handles Vulkan-optimized workloads relatively better than it handles OpenCL, but the CMP 70HX still comes out ahead. The CMP 70HX also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX550 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the CMP 70HX can take advantage of features like ray tracing and mesh shaders in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, which the MX550 cannot.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the CMP 70HX sits at 30,476, which is 15.4% higher than the MX550's 26,421. In terms of nearest rivals, the CMP 70HX is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (30,490, 0% delta), and is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095) and 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945). The MX550, on the other hand, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon 860M (26,401, 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26,331, 0.3% delta), and is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26,553). This shows that the CMP 70HX competes with much higher-tier GPUs, while the MX550 is in the range of modern integrated graphics and entry-level discrete cards.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every major specification. Here are the key differences recorded in the database:

• Process node: The CMP 70HX is built on Samsung's 8 nm process, while the MX550 uses TSMC's 12 nm process.
• Transistor count: The CMP 70HX has 17,400 million transistors; the MX550 has 4,700 million.
• Die size: The CMP 70HX measures 392 mm², while the MX550 is 200 mm².
• Base clock: The CMP 70HX runs at 1365 MHz; the MX550 at 1065 MHz.
• Boost clock: The CMP 70HX boosts to 1395 MHz; the MX550 to 1320 MHz.
• Memory clock: The CMP 70HX has an effective memory clock of 19 Gbps; the MX550 runs at 12 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: The CMP 70HX has 8 GB; the MX550 has 2 GB.
• Memory type: The CMP 70HX uses GDDR6X; the MX550 uses GDDR6.
• Memory bus width: The CMP 70HX has a 256-bit bus; the MX550 has a 64-bit bus.
• Memory bandwidth: The CMP 70HX delivers 608.3 GB/s; the MX550 delivers 96.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: The CMP 70HX has 3,840; the MX550 has 1,024.
• Texture mapping units: The CMP 70HX has 120; the MX550 has 32.
• Raster output units: The CMP 70HX has 64; the MX550 has 16.
• Ray tracing cores: The CMP 70HX has 30; the MX550 has none.
• Tensor cores: The CMP 70HX has 120; the MX550 has none.
• Pixel rate: The CMP 70HX is rated at 89.28 GPixel/s; the MX550 at 21.12 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: The CMP 70HX is rated at 167.4 GTexel/s; the MX550 at 42.24 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: The CMP 70HX is rated at 10.71 TFLOPS; the MX550 at 2.703 TFLOPS.
• Thermal design power: The CMP 70HX has no listed TDP; the MX550 is rated at 25 W.
• Slot width: The CMP 70HX is dual-slot; the MX550 is listed as IGP.
• Power connectors: The CMP 70HX requires a 12-pin connector; the MX550 has none.
• Suggested PSU: The CMP 70HX suggests a 200 W power supply; the MX550 has no listed suggestion.
• Bus interface: The CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4; the MX550 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.
• Display outputs: The CMP 70HX has no outputs; the MX550's outputs are portable-device dependent.
• DirectX support: The CMP 70HX supports 12 Ultimate (12_2); the MX550 supports 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The CMP 70HX is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, using the GA104 chip. It is manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process and includes 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. Ampere brings second-generation ray tracing cores and third-generation tensor cores, which are present on this GPU: 30 ray tracing cores and 120 tensor cores. This allows the CMP 70HX to handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, such as DLSS or other tensor-core-based operations. The GPU also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like variable rate shading and mesh shaders. Its FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 10.71 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio for both.

The MX550 uses the Turing architecture, specifically the TU117SB chip, manufactured on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, for a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter, roughly half the density of the CMP 70HX. Turing is an older architecture than Ampere, and this particular chip has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, so it cannot accelerate ray tracing or tensor operations in hardware. Its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_1), which lacks some of the features in 12 Ultimate. The MX550 also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, at 2.703 TFLOPS for both.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The CMP 70HX uses 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, which allows for 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX550 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. This is a sevenfold difference in bandwidth, which heavily impacts any memory-bound workload. The CMP 70HX also has a much larger L2 cache region by virtue of its bigger die, though the database does not list cache sizes directly. The MX550's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is newer and faster than the CMP 70HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, which is a legacy standard that severely limits data transfer between the GPU and the host system. However, because the CMP 70HX has no display outputs and is designed for compute tasks, the slower PCIe interface may not be as critical if the workload is largely GPU-resident.

Another major difference is the power delivery. The MX550 has a 25 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, which is why it can be integrated into portable devices. The CMP 70HX has no listed TDP, but it requires a 12-pin power connector and a 200 W suggested power supply, indicating it draws far more power. The CMP 70HX is also a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the MX550 has no listed dimensions and is classified as an IGP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA CMP 70HX outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 in every benchmark recorded in the database. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests, has a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, both of which are far more capable than the MX550's nearest rivals, which include integrated graphics like the AMD Radeon 860M and the entry-level NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060.

If your priority is raw compute performance, the CMP 70HX is the only rational choice. It offers 10.71 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 8 GB of GDDR6X memory, and hardware ray tracing and tensor cores. It is an end-of-life product, but it still competes with modern mid-range GPUs based on average benchmark scores.

If your priority is portability, power efficiency, and integration into a laptop or small form-factor device, the MX550 is the appropriate pick. It draws only 25 W, needs no power connectors, and is designed for portable devices. It cannot match the CMP 70HX in any performance metric, but it is not meant to. The MX550 is for users who need basic GPU acceleration in a mobile context, where the CMP 70HX would be physically impossible to install.

There is no scenario in which the MX550 wins a benchmark in this database. The only question is whether you need a desktop compute card or a mobile integrated GPU. If you need the former, take the CMP 70HX. If you need the latter, the MX550 is the only one of these two that fits, but the performance gap is massive and you should expect a very different level of capability.