CMP 30HX vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 and CMP 30HX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M5000 outperforms CMP 30HX by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 279 | 445 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.33 | 4.14 |
| Power efficiency | 11.51 | 7.18 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 25 February 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | $799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
CMP 30HX has 211% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 1.4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1536 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x4 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | 256 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.48 | 11.69 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 25 February 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 125 Watt |
Quadro M5000 has a 92.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
CMP 30HX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the CMP 30HX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
