AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA CMP 40HX Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA CMP 40HX is a study in contrasts: a modern workstation GPU built for rendering and compute faces a mining-specific card stripped of display outputs and optimized for a single task. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the CMP 40HX still holds a niche based on its unique positioning. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 leads in every recorded benchmark, with its average benchmark score of 118,976 sitting 38.9% above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX’s 85,637. However, the CMP 40HX’s 93rd percentile versus the W7700’s 95th percentile among all GPUs shows both are high performers, just at different tiers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins outright in both head-to-head tests, making it the superior choice for any workload that relies on general compute or graphics APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7700 scores 108,245 against the CMP 40HX’s 93,395, a 15.9% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7700 posts 129,706 versus 77,879, a 66.5% lead. This suggests the W7700’s RDNA 3.0 architecture handles modern API overhead far better, making it the pick for applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering or compute acceleration.

The NVIDIA CMP 40HX does not win any benchmark in this comparison. Its only potential win is situational: it is an end-of-life product with no display outputs, meaning it cannot drive a monitor. If a system requires a GPU solely for headless compute tasks that do not use Vulkan or OpenCL optimizations, the CMP 40HX could be considered, but the data does not support any performance advantage. Its 93rd percentile ranking shows it is still a capable card, but the W7700’s 95th percentile places it in a higher performance class overall.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip on the Turing architecture, built on an older 12 nm TSMC process. It contains 10,800 million transistors on a larger 445 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 24.3 million per mm².

Core configurations differ significantly. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units, along with 48 ray tracing cores. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores. The W7700 lacks dedicated tensor cores, while the CMP 40HX includes them, but no benchmark data in this comparison tests tensor performance. Clock speeds also favor AMD: the W7700 runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, while the CMP 40HX is at 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost.

Memory subsystems are another dividing line. The W7700 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 2250 MHz memory clock and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 40HX has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 1750 MHz, resulting in 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7700’s 128% bandwidth advantage is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the superior GPU for any workload measured here. It wins both benchmarks by substantial margins, offers double the memory capacity, and uses a newer, more efficient process node. The W7700’s 66.5% lead in Vulkan is particularly telling, indicating that applications using modern graphics APIs will see massive performance gains. The CMP 40HX’s only potential appeal is its lower launch MSRP of 699 USD, but that is a one-time mention and does not compensate for its performance deficit in any measured test.

For a professional workstation handling rendering, simulation, or compute tasks, the W7700 is the clear choice. Its 16 GB memory and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth support larger workloads than the CMP 40HX’s 8 GB and 448.0 GB/s. The CMP 40HX, being end-of-life and lacking display outputs, is only suitable for a niche headless mining or compute deployment where its 185 W TDP and 8-pin connector fit an existing power budget. Even then, its lower scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan mean the W7700 would process the same tasks faster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores overall?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,976, which is 38.9% higher than the NVIDIA CMP 40HX’s 85,637. The W7700 also wins both individual head-to-head tests.

Q: How much faster is the W7700 in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7700 scores 129,706 versus the CMP 40HX’s 77,879, a 66.5% advantage for AMD.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the W7700 achieves much higher scores in Vulkan and OpenCL tests.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the CMP 40HX has 8 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the W7700’s memory clock is 2250 MHz versus 1750 MHz, giving it 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 448.0 GB/s.

Q: Can the CMP 40HX output video to a display?

A: No, the CMP 40HX has no display outputs. The W7700 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The W7700 has 81.2 million transistors per mm² on a 5 nm process, while the CMP 40HX has 24.3 million per mm² on a 12 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 at 108,245 points, beating the NVIDIA CMP 40HX’s 93,395 points by 15.9%. This is a solid win that reflects the W7700’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The CMP 40HX’s 93,395 score is not trivial; it places the card in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, close to rivals like the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, which scores 87,108 with a -1.7% delta. The W7700’s 108,245 sits just above the NVIDIA GB10’s 117,393 (1.3% delta) and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation’s 117,088 (1.6% delta), meaning it competes with much newer NVIDIA workstation cards.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the W7700 dominates. Its 129,706 score crushes the CMP 40HX’s 77,879 by 66.5%. This is a generational leap in API efficiency. The CMP 40HX’s Vulkan score is even lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Turing architecture struggles with Vulkan’s low-level overhead. The W7700’s RDNA 3.0 architecture clearly handles Vulkan better, which matters for modern game engines and compute frameworks that use Vulkan as a primary backend.

Looking at the W7700’s nearest rivals, its average score of 118,976 is within 1.6% of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088) and 1.3% of the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393). This places it firmly in the upper mid-range of workstation GPUs. The CMP 40HX’s average of 85,637 is closest to the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108, -1.7% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445, -2.1% delta), showing it performs like a previous-generation mid-range card.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards highlight their different purposes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses a 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, while the NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses a 12 nm process with 10,800 million transistors on a larger 445 mm² die. Clock speeds favor AMD: 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost versus 1470 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. Memory capacity is 16 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR6, but the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz (576.0 GB/s bandwidth) versus 1750 MHz (448.0 GB/s).

Core counts differ: the W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 36 ray tracing cores, and 288 tensor cores. The W7700 has no tensor cores, while the CMP 40HX includes them, though this comparison does not include tensor-specific benchmarks. Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s for the W7700 versus 105.6 GPixel/s for the CMP 40HX. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 7.603 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 63.90 TFLOPS versus 15.21 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratios.

Power and physical specs are similar but not identical. Both are dual-slot cards with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP versus the CMP 40HX’s 185 W. The W7700 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the CMP 40HX is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. The bus interface differs notably: the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the CMP 40HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severe bottleneck for data transfer. Display outputs are the biggest practical difference: the W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, and the CMP 40HX has no outputs. The W7700 was released in November 2023, while the CMP 40HX came in February 2021 and is now end-of-life.