NVIDIA CMP 70HX vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T1000 8 GB and NVIDIA CMP 70HX represent two divergent approaches to GPU design, one aimed at professional visualization and the other at a specialized compute role. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy in the single shared benchmark, but the architectural and feature disparities are substantial. The CMP 70HX takes the sole head-to-head victory in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 35817 against the T1000’s 34561, a delta of -3.5% from the perspective of the T1000. This win is narrow in percentage terms, yet the underlying hardware differences suggest the gap could widen significantly in other workloads, particularly those leveraging raw compute throughput or memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the CMP 70HX posts a score of 35817, while the T1000 8 GB manages 34561. The delta percentage of -3.5% indicates the T1000 trails by a modest margin in this specific API. In practical terms, this means the CMP 70HX holds a slight edge in Vulkan-based gaming or compute workloads, but the result is far from a dominant victory. For context, the T1000’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at an average score of 34541, a delta of only 0.1%, and the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34355, a delta of 0.6%. The CMP 70HX, by contrast, sits close to the NVIDIA Tesla M60 at 30490 with a 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30433 with a 0.1% delta. These rival placements show that while the CMP 70HX wins the direct comparison, both cards occupy similar percentile territory: the T1000 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, while the CMP 70HX is at the 75th percentile.

The Vulkan score difference is small enough to be within run-to-run variance, but the broader specifications hint at why the CMP 70HX edges ahead. Its shading unit count is 3840 compared to 896 for the T1000, and its texture rate is 167.4 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. These raw compute resources should theoretically translate to higher throughput in heavily parallel tasks. Yet the Geekbench Vulkan result shows only a 3.5% advantage, suggesting that the test may be limited by other factors such as driver optimization or memory latency. The T1000’s 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is a fraction of the CMP 70HX’s 608.3 GB/s, so the fact that the T1000 stays this close is notable, possibly indicating that Vulkan’s workload in this benchmark does not fully stress memory bandwidth.

Looking at the average benchmark score across all recorded tests, the picture changes. The T1000 has only one benchmark entry, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 34561, giving it an average of 34561. The CMP 70HX has two entries: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 25135 and the Vulkan score of 35817, averaging to 30476. This aggregate data shows the T1000 actually leads by roughly 13.4% on average, a reversal of the single-test result. The OpenCL score for the CMP 70HX is substantially lower than its Vulkan score, which could indicate weaker OpenCL driver performance or a workload mismatch. For the T1000, no OpenCL result exists in the database, so a direct comparison on that API is not possible. The head-to-head section records only one win for the CMP 70HX and zero for the T1000, but the average benchmark data suggests the T1000 is the more consistent performer in the limited dataset available.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice between these two cards depends heavily on the intended workload. The CMP 70HX wins the only direct Vulkan comparison by 3.5%, making it the better option for applications that rely heavily on this API. Its 10.71 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is more than four times the T1000’s 2.500 TFLOPS, and its 608.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly four times higher. These figures, while not directly benchmarked, indicate that the CMP 70HX would excel in compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, provided the software can leverage its Ampere architecture features. However, the CMP 70HX has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any workstation role that requires driving a monitor directly.

The T1000 8 GB, on the other hand, is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a 50 W TDP, drawing power directly from the PCIe slot with no external power connectors. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 160.0 GB/s, which is modest but adequate for professional visualization tasks. The T1000’s average benchmark score of 34561 is higher than the CMP 70HX’s average of 30476, suggesting that in the tests recorded, the T1000 delivers better overall performance per benchmark entry. Its 79th percentile ranking versus the CMP 70HX’s 75th percentile reinforces this consistency.

For a user who needs a compact, low-power GPU for multi-display professional work, the T1000 is the clear choice from the data. For a user who prioritizes raw compute throughput and does not need display output, the CMP 70HX offers superior specifications on paper, even if the single Vulkan benchmark shows only a modest lead. The CMP 70HX’s dual-slot design and 1x 12-pin power connector require a more substantial power supply, and its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a significant bottleneck that could limit performance in some systems. The T1000’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is far more capable for data transfer, though the CMP 70HX’s higher bandwidth may compensate in memory-intensive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Vulkan score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 70HX scores 35817, which is 3.5% higher than the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB’s 34561.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The T1000 8 GB has an average benchmark score of 34561, while the CMP 70HX averages 30476 across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The CMP 70HX offers 608.3 GB/s from its 8 GB GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, while the T1000 provides 160.0 GB/s from 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Can the CMP 70HX drive a display?

A: No, the CMP 70HX has no display outputs, whereas the T1000 8 GB features four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities?

A: The CMP 70HX delivers 10.71 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the T1000’s 2.500 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The T1000 8 GB ranks at the 79th percentile, while the CMP 70HX ranks at the 75th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every physical and performance specification in the database. The T1000 uses a TU117 chip with a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the CMP 70HX uses a GA104 chip on an 8 nm process from Samsung. Transistor counts differ massively: the T1000 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5M per mm², whereas the CMP 70HX packs 17,400 million transistors onto a 392 mm² die, achieving 44.4M per mm². Base clocks are 1065 MHz for the T1000 and 1365 MHz for the CMP 70HX, but both boost to 1395 MHz. Memory clocks are recorded as 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective for the T1000, versus 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective for the CMP 70HX.

The T1000 features 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the CMP 70HX has 3840 shading units, 120 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rates are 44.64 GPixel/s for the T1000 and 89.28 GPixel/s for the CMP 70HX. Texture rates are 78.12 GTexel/s versus 167.4 GTexel/s. The T1000’s FP16 performance is 5.000 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the CMP 70HX achieves 10.71 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The T1000 has no RT or tensor cores, whereas the CMP 70HX includes 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores.

Power and physical dimensions also differ. The T1000 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no external power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The CMP 70HX has no listed TDP, is dual-slot, requires a 1x 12-pin connector, and suggests a 200 W PSU. The T1000 measures 156 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the CMP 70HX is 267 mm long and 112 mm high. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the T1000 and PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 70HX. The T1000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the CMP 70HX has none.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, the T1000 is built on Turing, while the CMP 70HX uses Ampere. This generational shift brings significant changes beyond raw specs. The Turing architecture in the T1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Ampere architecture in the CMP 70HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features like ray tracing and mesh shaders at the API level, alongside OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 70HX’s inclusion of 30 RT cores and 120 tensor cores marks a major functional difference, as the T1000 has none of these specialized units.

The process node difference, 12 nm for Turing versus 8 nm for Ampere, explains the transistor density gap: the CMP 70HX packs nearly double the transistors per square millimeter. The memory type also differs, with the T1000 using GDDR6 and the CMP 70HX using GDDR6X, which contributes to the latter’s 608.3 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 70HX’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a peculiar choice, likely intended to limit host communication for mining workloads, whereas the T1000’s PCIe 3.0 x16 provides full-bandwidth data transfer for professional tasks.

The generation labels in the database reflect their intended markets: the T1000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, while the CMP 70HX is categorized under Mining GPUs. This distinction is evident in their feature sets, with the T1000 prioritizing display outputs and low power consumption, and the CMP 70HX focusing on compute density and memory throughput. The T1000 has a release date of May 5, 2021, while no release date is recorded for the CMP 70HX. Both are marked as end-of-life products in the database. The T1000’s predecessor is listed as Quadro Volta and successor as Workstation Ampere, while the CMP 70HX has no predecessor or successor listed.