GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a surprisingly lopsided result, with the NVIDIA CMP 40HX taking both available tests despite the AMD Radeon RX 6650M being a newer, more power-efficient design. The clearest separation appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the CMP 40HX scores 93,395 against the RX 6650M's 65,800. That is a 41.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive margin that overshadows nearly everything else in this comparison. The CMP 40HX's OpenCL result places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6650M sits at the 91st percentile, so both cards are well above average, but the gap between them in raw compute is substantial.

The Vulkan results tell a different story. Here the two cards are effectively tied: the CMP 40HX scores 77,879 while the RX 6650M trails by a hair at 77,735. That 0.2% delta is within noise and shows that in a modern, low-level graphics API, the two architectures perform nearly identically. This is worth emphasizing because it changes the narrative: if your workload leans heavily on Vulkan, the choice between these two becomes almost irrelevant from a performance standpoint. The OpenCL gap, however, is too large to dismiss, and it suggests the CMP 40HX has a real compute advantage in certain environments.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the CMP 40HX posts 85,637 across all tests, while the RX 6650M averages 71,768. That is roughly a 19% overall lead for the NVIDIA card, driven entirely by the OpenCL result. In terms of nearest rivals, the CMP 40HX sits just 1.7% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7600's 87,108 average and 2.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro GP100's 87,445. It also beats the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995) by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959) by 5.8%. The RX 6650M, meanwhile, trades blows with the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098 average, just 0.5% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379, 0.8% ahead). It also beats the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829) by 1.3% but trails the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370) by 2.2%.

The takeaway is clear: the CMP 40HX wins decisively in OpenCL, while Vulkan is a dead heat. If your application uses OpenCL, the NVIDIA card is the obvious choice. If it uses Vulkan, you will not notice a difference in raw scores.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX averages 85,637 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M averages 71,768. That gives the CMP 40HX roughly a 19% advantage in aggregate performance.

Q: Is the RX 6650M competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the RX 6650M scores 77,735 versus the CMP 40HX's 77,879, a 0.2% difference that is effectively a tie. The AMD card also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 8.659 TFLOPS compared to 7.603 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, though real-world OpenCL results favor the CMP 40HX.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The CMP 40HX is 1.7% slower than the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and 2.1% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, but it beats the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 5.8%. The RX 6650M is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE, and 2.2% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The CMP 40HX ranks in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6650M ranks in the 91st percentile. Both are strong performers, but the CMP 40HX sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the CMP 40HX uses a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6650M uses a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6650M boosts up to 2416 MHz, while the CMP 40HX boosts to 1650 MHz. The AMD card also has a higher base clock at 2068 MHz versus 1470 MHz for the NVIDIA part.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is built on the Turing architecture using the TU106 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 10,800 million transistors into a 445 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It contains 11,060 million transistors on a much smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is denser and more modern, but the NVIDIA chip is physically larger.

The compute layouts diverge significantly. The CMP 40HX has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 36 ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores, reflecting Turing's hybrid approach to graphics and compute. The RX 6650M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. Despite having fewer shading units, the RX 6650M achieves higher FP32 throughput at 8.659 TFLOPS versus 7.603 TFLOPS for the CMP 40HX, thanks to its higher clocks. The same applies to FP16: 17.32 TFLOPS for AMD versus 15.21 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The memory subsystems differ as well. 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 RX 6650M's 128-bit bus delivers 224.0 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card. Pixel and texture rates also favor AMD: the RX 6650M produces 154.6 GPixel/s and 270.6 GTexel/s, while the CMP 40HX manages 105.6 GPixel/s and 237.6 GTexel/s. The AMD card's higher clocks give it the edge in these throughput metrics.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The CMP 40HX has a 185 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a 450 W power supply. The RX 6650M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with a 120 W TDP and no power connectors, since it is designed for mobile systems. The CMP 40HX has no display outputs, while the RX 6650M's outputs are portable device dependent. The NVIDIA card measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width; the AMD card has no listed dimensions.

The bus interfaces also differ: the CMP 40HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which is an oddity given its compute focus, while the RX 6650M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The CMP 40HX was released on 2021-02-24, while the RX 6650M followed on 2022-01-03. Both are end-of-life products.

# The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is the stronger performer overall, driven by its dominant OpenCL result. Its 41.9% lead in that test is too large to ignore, and its 93rd percentile ranking confirms it sits higher in the global GPU hierarchy than the RX 6650M's 91st percentile. If your workload is OpenCL-heavy, the CMP 40HX is the only rational pick.

However, the Vulkan tie changes the calculus for certain users. In Vulkan workloads, the two cards are within 0.2% of each other, essentially identical. If you are building a system around Vulkan applications, you can choose based on other factors like power draw or physical size without sacrificing performance. The RX 6650M's 120 W TDP versus 185 W for the CMP 40HX makes it a much easier fit for compact or thermally constrained builds, and its integrated nature means no extra power cabling.

For raw compute in OpenCL, the CMP 40HX wins outright. Its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is double the RX 6650M's, which likely explains its OpenCL advantage. The NVIDIA card also has tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely, making it better suited for any workload that can leverage them. The CMP 40HX is also the only one with a launch MSRP of 699 USD, though that figure is historical and does not reflect current market conditions.

The RX 6650M's strengths lie in efficiency and modern process technology. It delivers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher pixel and texture rates, and does so at a much lower TDP. Its 7 nm process gives it a transistor density nearly double that of the CMP 40HX. For mobile or low-power applications, it is the superior engineering choice.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA CMP 40HX | AMD Radeon RX 6650M |

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

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

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

| Die Size | 445 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1470 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz | 2416 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 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | 28 |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 7.603 TFLOPS | 8.659 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 105.6 GPixel/s | 154.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 237.6 GTexel/s | 270.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 185 W | 120 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Release Date | 2021-02-24 | 2022-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | 699 USD | None |

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 40HX wins in OpenCL compute by a wide margin, 41.9% over the RX 6650M. It also wins in overall average benchmark score (85,637 versus 71,768) and in memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s). If your application is compute-bound and uses OpenCL, this is the card to pick. The CMP 40HX also brings tensor cores to the table, which the RX 6650M lacks entirely, so any workload that can utilize tensor operations will favor NVIDIA.

The AMD Radeon RX 6650M wins on efficiency and clock speeds. Its boost clock of 2416 MHz is nearly 50% higher than the CMP 40HX's 1650 MHz, and its base clock of 2068 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA card's boost. This translates to higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher pixel rate, and higher texture rate despite having fewer shading units. The RX 6650M also consumes 65 W less power (120 W versus 185 W) and requires no external power connectors, making it vastly easier to integrate into a system. Its 7 nm process gives it a much smaller die and higher transistor density, which is a meaningful engineering advantage.

In Vulkan, neither card wins, the 0.2% delta is negligible. That means the RX 6650M is a viable alternative for Vulkan-based workloads, where its lower power draw and smaller physical footprint become the deciding factors. For OpenCL-heavy tasks, the CMP 40HX is the clear winner. For everything else, the RX 6650M offers comparable performance with far better efficiency. Choose based on your API and power constraints.