GPU Comparison

NVIDIA CMP 40HX and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 are two end-of-life compute accelerators that took very different paths to the same destination. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 93,395 against the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25’s 68,562. That is a 36.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card sits in the 90th percentile. The NVIDIA card’s average benchmark score across all tests is 85,637, compared to 68,562 for the AMD card, a gap that reflects both raw compute capacity and architectural efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisive. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX delivers 93,395 points, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 manages 68,562. The delta is 36.2% in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial lead that places the CMP 40HX well ahead of its rival in general-purpose compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts this score in context. The CMP 40HX’s average score of 85,637 sits just 1.7% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and 2.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, while running 4.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 and 5.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X. This means the CMP 40HX is competitive with modern workstation cards despite being a mining-focused product. On the AMD side, the Instinct MI25’s average score of 68,562 is nearly identical to the Intel Arc A770, which trails by just 0.4%, and it sits 0.6% behind the NVIDIA CMP 90HX. The MI25 is 1.9% slower than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and 2.0% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. The CMP 40HX’s win is not just a matter of beating one rival; it outperforms the MI25 by a margin larger than the gap between the MI25 and any of its own closest competitors.

The single OpenCL test does not tell the whole story, but it is the only story the data supports. There is no Vulkan score for the AMD card, so comparisons across different APIs are impossible. The NVIDIA card also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 77,879, which is lower than its OpenCL result but still substantial. Without a corresponding AMD Vulkan number, the 36.2% lead in OpenCL stands as the definitive head-to-head result.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip, based on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip, based on GCN 5.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is small but meaningful: 12 nm versus 14 nm gives NVIDIA a slight density advantage, though the AMD chip packs more transistors overall.

The transistor counts reflect this. The AMD chip contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, resulting in a density of 25.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die, for a density of 24.3M per mm². AMD’s chip is physically larger and denser, but NVIDIA’s smaller, less dense chip still wins in benchmark performance. This suggests architectural efficiency matters more than raw silicon size.

Clock speeds also differ. The NVIDIA card runs at a base clock of 1470 MHz and boosts to 1650 MHz. The AMD card runs at 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card is faster in both metrics, with a 70 MHz higher base clock and a 150 MHz higher boost clock. Memory clocks are more divergent: the CMP 40HX uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective, while the MI25 uses HBM2 at 852 MHz, or 1704 Mbps effective. Despite these differences, the memory bandwidth is nearly identical: 448.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA card versus 436.2 GB/s for the AMD card. The AMD card achieves comparable bandwidth through a 2048-bit bus, while the NVIDIA card uses a 256-bit bus with faster memory.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The AMD card has 4096 shading units and 256 texture mapping units, while the NVIDIA card has 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs. However, the NVIDIA card includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, features that the AMD card lacks entirely. This is a generational difference: Turing introduced dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, while GCN 5.0 predates those additions. The pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 105.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, but the texture rate heavily favors AMD at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s. The compute throughput numbers are also lopsided: the AMD card delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16, while the NVIDIA card delivers 7.603 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.21 TFLOPS FP16. AMD has a raw compute advantage on paper, yet it loses in the actual benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX wins in the only measured category: Geekbench OpenCL performance. It also has architectural features the AMD card lacks, including RT cores and tensor cores, which could accelerate ray tracing and AI workloads respectively. The NVIDIA card is more power-efficient on paper, with a 185 W TDP versus 300 W for the AMD card, and it requires only a single 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, compared to the AMD card’s two 8-pin connectors and 700 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is also shorter, at 229 mm, versus 267 mm for the AMD card.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 wins in sheer compute throughput. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 is 61.6% higher than the NVIDIA card’s 7.603 TFLOPS, and its 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 is 61.6% higher as well. It also has double the memory capacity at 16 GB versus 8 GB, and a much wider memory bus at 2048 bits versus 256 bits. The AMD card supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card lists PCIe 1.0 x4, which is a significant interface disadvantage for the NVIDIA part. For workloads that fit in memory and scale with raw FP32 throughput, the AMD card could be the better choice. For workloads that benefit from tensor cores, RT cores, or higher memory bandwidth per bit, the NVIDIA card has the edge.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX has an average benchmark score of 85,637, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has an average score of 68,562. The NVIDIA card is 36.2% ahead in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Does the AMD card have any compute advantage?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16, compared to 7.603 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.21 TFLOPS FP16 for the NVIDIA CMP 40HX. The AMD card also has 4096 shading units versus 2304, and 256 TMUs versus 144.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, offering 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, offering 436.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has twice the capacity, but the NVIDIA card has slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and tensor operations?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has no such hardware. This is a Turing-era feature that the older GCN 5.0 architecture does not provide.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX has a 185 W TDP, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has a 300 W TDP, uses two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 700 W PSU.

Q: How do the cards compare in process technology?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA chip is smaller at 445 mm² versus 495 mm², but the AMD chip has more transistors at 12,500 million versus 10,800 million.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip on a 12 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip on a 14 nm process. The NVIDIA card has 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die, while the AMD card has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Transistor density is 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA and 25.3M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds differ: the NVIDIA card runs at 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, while the AMD card runs at 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) for AMD. Memory capacity is 8 GB GDDR6 for NVIDIA versus 16 GB HBM2 for AMD, with bus widths of 256 bits and 2048 bits respectively. Bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s for NVIDIA and 436.2 GB/s for AMD.

Shading units are 2304 for NVIDIA versus 4096 for AMD, TMUs are 144 versus 256, and ROPs are 64 for both. The NVIDIA card has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, while the AMD card has none. Pixel rate is 105.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 96.00 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 237.6 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 384.0 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 compute is 7.603 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 12.29 TFLOPS for AMD, and FP16 is 15.21 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. TDP is 185 W for NVIDIA versus 300 W for AMD, with power connectors of 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin, and suggested PSU of 450 W versus 700 W. The bus interface is PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Dimensions are 229 mm length for NVIDIA versus 267 mm for AMD, with the same 111 mm height. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute performance: the NVIDIA CMP 40HX. Its 36.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, and its higher average benchmark score of 85,637 versus 68,562 confirms the advantage is not a fluke of a single test. The NVIDIA card also offers RT cores and tensor cores, features that have no equivalent on the AMD side, and it does so while consuming less power and requiring a smaller PSU. For any workload measured by OpenCL benchmarks, the NVIDIA card is the better choice.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has its own strengths. It offers double the memory capacity at 16 GB, a wider 2048-bit memory bus, and significantly higher raw compute throughput in FP32 and FP16. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 are roughly 60% higher than the NVIDIA card’s figures. For users who need large memory capacity or who run workloads that scale with raw shader throughput, the AMD card could be preferable. However, the benchmark data shows that raw compute does not translate to benchmark wins in this case.

Given that both cards are end-of-life products, the choice depends on workload. For compatibility with modern APIs, tensor-based AI tasks, or higher memory bandwidth per bit, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is the stronger option. For memory-hungry tasks that fit within 16 GB and can leverage the wider bus, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 remains viable. The benchmark results, however, favor NVIDIA by a wide margin.