NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and NVIDIA CMP 70HX are both end-of-life cards, but they target completely different worlds. The Quadro M5000 is a Maxwell-era professional workstation card, while the CMP 70HX is an Ampere-era mining GPU with no display outputs. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the Quadro wins one test, the CMP wins the other, with the overall average scores landing close together. Here is how the numbers break down.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available benchmark tests tell opposite stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000 scores 29481 against the CMP 70HX’s 25135. That is a 17.3% lead for the Quadro, a decisive margin that suggests the older card handles compute workloads more efficiently in this particular API. The CMP 70HX falls behind by a significant amount, and this result alone gives the Quadro its only benchmark win.

The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The CMP 70HX posts 35817, while the Quadro M5000 manages 32931. The CMP leads by 8.1%, showing a clear advantage in this modern graphics API. This is not a small gap; it indicates the Ampere architecture’s newer feature set translates into real performance gains under Vulkan. The Quadro’s Maxwell architecture, despite its OpenCL strength, cannot keep pace here.

Looking at the broader averages, the two cards are nearly inseparable. The Quadro M5000’s average benchmark score is 31206, and the CMP 70HX sits at 30476. That is a difference of roughly 730 points, or about 2.4%. The Quadro’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q, scores 31220, which is essentially identical. The CMP 70HX’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA Tesla M60, scores 30490, again nearly a dead heat. In percentile terms, the Quadro ranks at 76 among all GPUs, and the CMP sits just one point behind at 75. These are mid-pack performers, not top-tier hardware, but they are not obsolete either.

The delta percentages against rivals reinforce this. The Quadro M5000 is within 1.5% of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, a much newer and more expensive card, and within 1% of the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell. The CMP 70HX trails the AMD Radeon RX 6800 by 1.3% and beats the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti by 1.8%. Neither card embarrasses itself in company; both hold their own against surprisingly modern competition.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon could not be more different. The Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. The CMP 70HX uses the GA104 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors in a slightly smaller 392 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: the CMP packs 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter, versus the Quadro’s 13.1 million. That is a 3.4x density advantage for the Ampere part, reflecting the massive process node jump.

Shader counts differ dramatically. The Quadro has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The CMP 70HX has 3840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs. The CMP has nearly double the shader count, but fewer texture units, which explains why its raw texture rate of 167.4 GTexel/s is only about 26% higher than the Quadro’s 132.9 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are closer: 89.28 GPixel/s for the CMP versus 66.43 GPixel/s for the Quadro.

Clock speeds favor the CMP heavily. The CMP runs at a 1365 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost, while the Quadro sits at 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. That higher frequency, combined with more shaders, gives the CMP a 10.71 TFLOPS FP32 rating against the Quadro’s 4.252 TFLOPS. The CMP also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 10.71 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. The CMP adds 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores, features the Quadro lacks entirely.

Memory subsystems differ as well. Both cards have 8 GB, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 at 6.6 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, yielding 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP uses GDDR6X at 19 Gbps effective on the same 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s. That is nearly 3x the bandwidth, a massive advantage for the CMP in memory-bound workloads. The CMP’s memory clock is listed at 1188 MHz, while the Quadro’s is 1653 MHz, but the effective data rate differences dominate.

The CMP supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP has no display outputs at all, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The CMP is also dual-slot but uses a 1x 12-pin connector with a suggested 200 W PSU, though its TDP is not listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000 wins in OpenCL compute tasks. The 17.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests it handles general-purpose GPU compute better than the CMP, despite being older and having fewer shaders. This may stem from driver optimizations for professional applications or the Maxwell architecture’s efficiency in certain compute patterns. For users running OpenCL-based workloads, the Quadro is the safer pick based on this data.

The CMP 70HX wins in Vulkan workloads. Its 8.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan shows that the Ampere architecture’s newer feature set, including hardware ray tracing cores and tensor cores, translates into better performance in modern graphics APIs. The higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth likely contribute to this advantage. For Vulkan-based gaming or compute, the CMP is clearly superior.

The CMP also wins on raw compute throughput. Its 10.71 TFLOPS FP32 rating is 2.5x the Quadro’s 4.252 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability doubles that advantage in supported workloads. Memory bandwidth is similarly lopsided at 608.3 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s. If a workload can leverage these specs, the CMP should dominate, even if the benchmark averages do not fully reflect it.

The Quadro wins on connectivity and practicality for desktop use. It has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a DVI port, making it usable in a standard workstation. The CMP has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor without a secondary GPU. The Quadro’s 150 W TDP is also listed, while the CMP’s is absent, though the CMP’s suggested PSU of 200 W versus 450 W hints at lower overall system draw.

The Verdict

Pick the Quadro M5000 if you need a professional workstation card with display outputs for OpenCL-heavy tasks. The 17.3% OpenCL lead over the CMP is significant, and the four DisplayPort outputs make it functional for multi-monitor setups. Its average benchmark score of 31206 is slightly higher than the CMP’s 30476, and it matches the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q almost exactly. It is a proven card for compute workloads, despite its age.

Pick the CMP 70HX if you prioritize Vulkan performance and raw compute specs, and you do not need video outputs. The 8.1% Vulkan lead over the Quadro is meaningful, and the 10.71 TFLOPS FP32, 10.71 TFLOPS FP16, and 608.3 GB/s bandwidth give it enormous headroom for modern workloads. The 120 tensor cores and 30 RT cores add capabilities the Quadro cannot match. Its average score of 30476 sits close to the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and Tesla M60, so it is not a slouch.

For most users, the CMP 70HX is the better raw performer, but its lack of display outputs makes it a niche product. The Quadro M5000 is the more practical choice for a desktop system, especially if you run OpenCL-based professional software. The data does not declare a clear winner; it declares a split based on workload.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has an average benchmark score of 31206, while the NVIDIA CMP 70HX scores 30476. That is a 730-point gap in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How big is the CMP 70HX’s lead in Vulkan?

A: The CMP 70HX scores 35817 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the Quadro M5000’s 32931. That is an 8.1% lead for the CMP.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 outperform the CMP in any test?

A: Yes, the Quadro M5000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 29481 against the CMP’s 25135, a 17.3% advantage.

Q: Can the CMP 70HX be used with a monitor?

A: No, the CMP 70HX has no display outputs. The Quadro M5000, by contrast, has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The CMP 70HX has 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth with GDDR6X memory, while the Quadro M5000 has 211.6 GB/s with GDDR5. The CMP has nearly three times the bandwidth.

Q: How do the cards compare in FP32 compute?

A: The CMP 70HX delivers 10.71 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M5000 delivers 4.252 TFLOPS. The CMP also offers 10.71 TFLOPS FP16, which the Quadro lacks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 | NVIDIA CMP 70HX |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 | GA104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 861 MHz | 1365 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective | 1188 MHz, 19 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 211.6 GB/s | 608.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 128 | 120 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 30 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 120 |

| Pixel Rate | 66.43 GPixel/s | 89.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 132.9 GTexel/s | 167.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.252 TFLOPS | 10.71 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 10.71 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Dual-slot |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | Not listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | Mining GPUs |