CMP 30HX vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with CMP 30HX, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
27.94
+153%

Pro 56 outperforms CMP 30HX by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking217444
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.554.19
Power efficiency10.727.11
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date14 August 2017 (8 years ago)25 February 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Pro Vega 56 has 271% better value for money than CMP 30HX.

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 cores35841408
Core clock speed1138 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt125 Watt
Texture fill rate280.0157.1
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs22488
L1 Cache896 KB1.4 MB
L2 Cache4 MB1536 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x4
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s336.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3
CUDA-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.

Pro Vega 56 27.94
+153%
CMP 30HX 11.03

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.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+153%
Samples: 20
CMP 30HX 4879
Samples: 17

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.

Pro Vega 56 59752
CMP 30HX 65068
+8.9%

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.

Pro Vega 56 64230
+3.7%
CMP 30HX 61938

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD96
+174%
35−40
−174%
4K57
+171%
21−24
−171%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16
+449%
22.83
−449%
4K7.00
+444%
38.05
−444%
  • Pro Vega 56 has 449% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 has 444% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+160%
65−70
−160%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+179%
24−27
−179%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+171%
24−27
−171%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+180%
40−45
−180%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+160%
65−70
−160%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+179%
24−27
−179%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
Fortnite 130−140
+176%
50−55
−176%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+160%
45−50
−160%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+171%
35−40
−171%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+171%
24−27
−171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
Valorant 190−200
+155%
75−80
−155%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+180%
40−45
−180%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+160%
65−70
−160%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+174%
100−105
−174%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+179%
24−27
−179%
Dota 2 107
+168%
40−45
−168%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
Fortnite 130−140
+176%
50−55
−176%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+160%
45−50
−160%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+171%
35−40
−171%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+163%
40−45
−163%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+171%
24−27
−171%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+183%
24−27
−183%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+158%
45−50
−158%
Valorant 190−200
+155%
75−80
−155%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+180%
40−45
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+179%
24−27
−179%
Dota 2 102
+155%
40−45
−155%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+177%
35−40
−177%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+160%
45−50
−160%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+171%
24−27
−171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+167%
45−50
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+167%
24−27
−167%
Valorant 190−200
+155%
75−80
−155%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+176%
50−55
−176%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+156%
27−30
−156%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+163%
80−85
−163%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+176%
21−24
−176%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+163%
16−18
−163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+169%
65−70
−169%
Valorant 220−230
+167%
85−90
−167%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+170%
30−33
−170%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+159%
27−30
−159%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+167%
30−33
−167%
Hogwarts Legacy 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+189%
18−20
−189%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+178%
27−30
−178%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+181%
21−24
−181%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+163%
16−18
−163%
Valorant 180−190
+157%
70−75
−157%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+161%
18−20
−161%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Dota 2 96
+174%
35−40
−174%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+157%
21−24
−157%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+192%
12−14
−192%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+192%
12−14
−192%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and CMP 30HX compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is 174% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 171% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 27.94 11.03
Recency 14 August 2017 25 February 2021
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 125 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 153.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

CMP 30HX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 68% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the CMP 30HX in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while CMP 30HX is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
NVIDIA CMP 30HX
CMP 30HX

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 93 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 38 votes

Rate CMP 30HX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 56 or CMP 30HX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.