GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA CMP 40HX vs AMD Radeon PRO W6600

The NVIDIA CMP 40HX and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 are two very different GPUs that happen to land near each other in aggregate performance. The CMP 40HX is a Turing-based mining part with no display outputs, while the Radeon PRO W6600 is an RDNA 2.0 workstation card built around professional visualization. Their average benchmark scores sit within 4.4% of each other, yet the underlying architectures, power envelopes, and intended use cases could hardly be more different. The data shows two cards that trade blows depending on the workload, with the NVIDIA part winning OpenCL handily and the AMD card edging ahead in Vulkan.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in this comparison comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA CMP 40HX posts a score of 93,395 against the Radeon PRO W6600's 73,514. That is a 27% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that reflects the CMP 40HX's larger memory bus and higher raw shading throughput in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The 256-bit memory interface delivers 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the W6600's 224.0 GB/s, which likely explains much of this gap. For any application that stresses memory bandwidth alongside compute, the CMP 40HX is the clear winner here.

However, the story flips in Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 scores 78,428, narrowly beating the CMP 40HX's 77,879. The delta is just -0.7%, which is within noise territory, but it still marks a win for AMD. This closer result suggests that the W6600's higher clock speeds — a 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost versus the CMP 40HX's 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost — help close the gap in graphics-API workloads despite the bandwidth disadvantage. The Vulkan test also benefits from the W6600's RDNA 2.0 architecture, which was designed with modern graphics APIs in mind.

Looking at aggregate scores, the CMP 40HX averages 85,637 across its benchmark suite, while the W6600 averages 81,995. That puts the NVIDIA part 4.4% ahead on average, per the nearestRivals data. Interestingly, the W6600's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 at 79,842 (2.7% behind) and the Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB at 79,605 (3% behind), showing that the AMD card punches near the level of much newer and more expensive hardware in certain tests. The CMP 40HX, meanwhile, sits just 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and 2.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, placing it in a tight cluster of mid-range professional and mining GPUs.

The wins are split evenly at one apiece, but the magnitude tells the real story. A 27% OpenCL victory is far more decisive than a 0.7% Vulkan edge. If your workload leans on OpenCL compute, the CMP 40HX is the statistical pick. If you need balanced graphics-API performance, the W6600 holds its own.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX averages 85,637 across its benchmarks, which is 4.4% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6600's 81,995 average.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The CMP 40HX scores 93,395 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the W6600's 73,514 by a 27% margin. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards.

Q: Is the Radeon PRO W6600 competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: Yes. The W6600 scores 78,428 in Geekbench Vulkan, edging out the CMP 40HX's 77,879 by 0.7%. It's a narrow win, but it shows AMD's card is not outclassed in modern graphics APIs.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 40HX also includes 288 tensor cores and 36 RT cores, while the W6600 has 28 RT cores but no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 8 GB of GDDR6, but the CMP 40HX uses a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6600 uses a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a 100 W TDP and requires a 300 W power supply, compared to the CMP 40HX's 185 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU. The W6600 is also single-slot with a single 6-pin connector, while the CMP 40HX is dual-slot with one 8-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is built on the TU106 chip using the Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 10,800 million transistors into a 445 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm node. It contains 11,060 million transistors in a much smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter — nearly double the density of the NVIDIA chip. This process advantage helps explain the W6600's higher clocks and lower power draw despite similar transistor counts.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The CMP 40HX has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, features that are present even though this is a mining-focused card. The W6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 RT cores but no tensor cores. Despite having fewer shaders, the W6600 achieves higher peak throughput: 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.603 TFLOPS for the CMP 40HX. The same pattern holds for texture rate, with the W6600 at 289.0 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. Pixel rate tells a different story, with the W6600 at 165.1 GPixel/s versus 105.6 GPixel/s, again favoring AMD despite the narrower memory bus.

The memory architectures are starkly different. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, but the CMP 40HX's 256-bit bus delivers 448.0 GB/s, while the W6600's 128-bit bus halves that to 224.0 GB/s. This is the single biggest architectural differentiator and likely drives the large OpenCL performance gap. The bus interface also differs: the CMP 40HX runs on PCIe 1.0 x4, a bizarrely old specification for a 2021 card, while the W6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The CMP 40HX has no display outputs at all, whereas the W6600 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the NVIDIA card's tensor cores give it an edge in AI-adjacent workloads that the AMD part lacks.

Power and physical design also diverge. The CMP 40HX draws 185 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin connector and a 450 W PSU. The W6600 sips 100 W, fits in a single slot, uses one 6-pin connector, and needs only a 300 W power supply. The CMP 40HX is shorter at 229 mm versus 241 mm for the W6600, but the NVIDIA card is thicker at 35 mm versus a single-slot profile for AMD.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different buyer profiles. If compute performance in OpenCL is the priority, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is the statistical choice — its 27% lead in that benchmark is decisive and likely stems from its double memory bandwidth. The card also carries a modest aggregate advantage of 4.4% over the W6600. However, the CMP 40HX is a mining part with no display outputs, so it cannot serve as a workstation GPU for visual tasks. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is also a severe bottleneck for any data transfer to the host system, which would undermine many professional workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the more versatile card on paper. It offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a single-slot design, and a 100 W TDP that makes it easy to integrate into dense workstation builds. Its Vulkan score edges out the CMP 40HX, and its higher FP32 throughput (9.247 versus 7.603 TFLOPS) suggests better raw compute in some scenarios despite the OpenCL deficit. The W6600's 7 nm process and higher clock speeds also point to better efficiency per watt, though the data does not include direct power-performance benchmarks.

For a professional workstation user who needs display outputs and balanced performance, the Radeon PRO W6600 is the sensible pick. For a compute-focused deployment where OpenCL matters most and display output is irrelevant, the CMP 40HX offers superior performance in that specific domain. The 4.4% aggregate lead for NVIDIA is real but comes with major caveats around connectivity and usability. The W6600's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 5090 at only 2.7% behind, which contextualizes how well AMD's card performs relative to much newer silicon. Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload: raw OpenCL throughput favors NVIDIA, while everything else — power, size, outputs, and modern connectivity — favors AMD.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA CMP 40HX | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 10,800 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 445 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1470 MHz | 2331 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | 2580 MHz |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 36 | 28 |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 7.603 TFLOPS | 9.247 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1) | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 105.6 GPixel/s | 165.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 237.6 GTexel/s | 289.0 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 185 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 1.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 229 mm | 241 mm |

| Launch MSRP | 699 USD | 649 USD |