NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 70HX and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The CMP 70HX is a mining-focused Ampere part stripped of display outputs, while the RTX 8000 is a Turing-based workstation behemoth with massive memory capacity. Benchmark data shows a stark performance gulf, with the Quadro RTX 8000 winning both head-to-head tests by overwhelming margins, yet the two cards occupy similar overall percentile positions when compared against the entire GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against the CMP 70HX’s 25,135, a delta of -75.3% for the CMP 70HX. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RTX 8000 posts 122,637 versus 35,817, representing a -70.8% difference. In both tests, the Quadro RTX 8000 more than triples the CMP 70HX’s output. These are not marginal wins; they are category-level separations.

The CMP 70HX wins zero of the two head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 30,476 is actually higher than the RTX 8000’s 28,421, which seems paradoxical given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy stems from the benchmark set: the CMP 70HX has only two Geekbench scores, while the RTX 8000’s average includes nine tests, several of which (Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12) score in the low hundreds or tens, dragging down its aggregate.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The CMP 70HX’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla M60 with an average score of 30,490 and a deltaPct of 0, followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30,433 (0.1%), AMD Radeon RX 6800 at 30,095 (1.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti at 29,945 (1.8%). The RTX 8000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28,580 (-0.6%), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020 (1.4%) also nearby. This places the CMP 70HX in a cluster of modern mid-range and upper-mid-range consumer cards, while the RTX 8000 sits alongside older high-end and workstation parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 16.31 TFLOPS exceeds the CMP 70HX’s 10.71 TFLOPS. In FP16, the gap widens dramatically: the RTX 8000 delivers 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the CMP 70HX offers only 10.71 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This makes the RTX 8000 three times faster in half-precision workloads, a critical advantage for AI inference and certain scientific computations. The RTX 8000 also leads in texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s vs 167.4 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s vs 89.28 GPixel/s), reflecting its 288 TMUs and 96 ROPs against the CMP 70HX’s 120 TMUs and 64 ROPs.

The CMP 70HX’s wins are narrower but real. Its memory bandwidth of 608.3 GB/s, achieved with GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, is only slightly trailing the RTX 8000’s 672.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. Given the CMP 70HX has one-third the memory capacity (8 GB vs 48 GB), its bandwidth efficiency per gigabyte is far superior. The CMP 70HX also has a higher transistor density at 44.4M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm², a direct result of its 8nm Samsung process versus the RTX 8000’s 12nm TSMC node. The CMP 70HX’s average benchmark score of 30,476 is 7.2% higher than the RTX 8000’s 28,421, but this reflects the differing test suites rather than genuine performance superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures and process nodes. The CMP 70HX uses the GA104 chip on an 8nm Samsung process, part of the Ampere generation and classified under "Mining GPUs." The RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on a 12nm TSMC process, belonging to the Turing architecture and the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. The transistor counts are close — 17,400 million for GA104 versus 18,600 million for TU102 — but the die sizes differ enormously: 392 mm² for the CMP 70HX versus 754 mm² for the RTX 8000. This explains the transistor density gap (44.4M/mm² vs 24.7M/mm²).

The RTX 8000 has more of everything in its compute core: 4,608 shading units versus 3,840, 288 TMUs versus 120, 96 ROPs versus 64, 72 RT cores versus 30, and 576 tensor cores versus 120. The CMP 70HX’s clocks are lower (base 1365 MHz, boost 1395 MHz) compared to the RTX 8000’s (base 1395 MHz, boost 1770 MHz). Memory configurations diverge sharply: the CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X at 19 Gbps effective, while the RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective. The bus widths differ (256-bit vs 384-bit), and bandwidth slightly favors the RTX 8000 (672.0 GB/s vs 608.3 GB/s).

The CMP 70HX has no display outputs, reflecting its mining purpose, while the RTX 8000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The bus interface differs: PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 70HX versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the RTX 8000. Power requirements also diverge: the CMP 70HX has no listed TDP but suggests a 200 W PSU with a single 12-pin connector, while the RTX 8000 is rated at 260 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards with nearly identical dimensions (267 mm length; 112 mm vs 111 mm height). Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 delivers 16.31 TFLOPS FP32, which is 52% higher than the CMP 70HX’s 10.71 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The CMP 70HX offers 608.3 GB/s using 8 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, while the RTX 8000 provides 672.0 GB/s using 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The RTX 8000 achieves 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, exactly three times the CMP 70HX’s 10.71 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has any display outputs on the CMP 70HX, while the RTX 8000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The CMP 70HX has an average benchmark score of 30,476 compared to the RTX 8000’s 28,421, but this is because the RTX 8000’s average includes several low-scoring Passmark DirectX tests.

Q: What is the transistor density comparison?

A: The CMP 70HX has 44.4M transistors per mm² on its 8nm Samsung process, while the RTX 8000 has 24.7M per mm² on its 12nm TSMC process. The RTX 8000’s die is nearly twice as large (754 mm² vs 392 mm²).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA CMP 70HX | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1365 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1395 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 19 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 48 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 608.3 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 120 | 288 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 30 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | 120 | 576 |

| Pixel Rate | 89.28 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 167.4 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.71 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | Not listed | 260 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 12-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Height | 112 mm | 111 mm |

| Generation | Mining GPUs | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 9,999 USD |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of use cases. The Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior compute card in nearly every measurable way: it has 52% more FP32 throughput, three times the FP16 throughput, 6 times the memory capacity, and 6.6 times the RT core count. Its 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores make it substantially better equipped for ray tracing and AI workloads than the CMP 70HX’s 30 and 120, respectively. The RTX 8000 also has a 100% higher pixel rate and 205% higher texture rate. For professional 3D rendering, scientific simulation, or large-model AI inference, the RTX 8000 is the only viable choice between these two.

The CMP 70HX does have niche strengths. Its GDDR6X memory achieves 608.3 GB/s bandwidth with only 8 GB of capacity, meaning higher per-gigabyte throughput. Its 8nm process gives it a transistor density advantage (44.4M/mm² vs 24.7M/mm²) and a smaller die, which historically correlates with lower power draw per unit of performance. Its lower suggested PSU (200 W vs 600 W) and single 12-pin connector indicate a simpler power delivery requirement. However, with zero display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, the CMP 70HX cannot serve any workstation role that requires display output or high host-to-device bandwidth.

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story: both cards sit near the 75th percentile of all GPUs (75 for CMP 70HX, 74 for RTX 8000), yet their head-to-head Geekbench scores differ by over 70%. This suggests the CMP 70HX’s percentile is buoyed by its two strong Geekbench scores, whereas the RTX 8000’s percentile is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are irrelevant to its intended workstation role. The verdict is straightforward: professionals needing memory capacity, compute throughput, and display connectivity should choose the RTX 8000. Anyone constrained to mining or headless compute tasks where FP16 is not critical might consider the CMP 70HX for its bandwidth efficiency and lower power requirements, but even then, the RTX 8000’s raw performance advantage in every head-to-head test is decisive.