AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition vs NVIDIA CMP 40HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear but nuanced performance landscape when comparing the NVIDIA CMP 40HX against the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition. Across the two shared tests—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—the NVIDIA CMP 40HX secures victories in both, yet the margins differ substantially.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 40HX posts a score of 93,395 against the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition’s 76,111. That represents a 22.7% delta, a commanding lead that places the CMP 40HX firmly ahead in compute-oriented workloads. This is the largest single-test advantage in the matchup, and it aligns with the CMP 40HX’s position in the broader performance hierarchy. Its average benchmark score of 85,637 sits at the 93rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Vega Frontier Edition’s 73,370 average lands at the 91st percentile. The OpenCL result is not an outlier; it is the primary driver of the overall average score gap.

The Vulkan test tells a closer story. The CMP 40HX scores 77,879, while the Vega Frontier Edition achieves 71,937, yielding an 8.3% delta. This smaller margin suggests that the Vulkan workload narrows the gap, likely due to differing API-level optimizations and driver behavior. Still, the NVIDIA part wins outright, meaning it holds the advantage in both cross-platform compute and graphics-oriented APIs tested here.

It is worth remembering the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has an additional benchmark result—Geekbench Metal—where it scores 72,061. This test is not available for the CMP 40HX, which has no display outputs and is not designed for macOS-style Metal workloads. The absence of a Metal score for the NVIDIA card means the comparison is limited to OpenCL and Vulkan, but within those shared tests, the CMP 40HX is undefeated.

When contextualizing the CMP 40HX’s performance against its nearest rivals, its average score of 85,637 is only 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108) and 2.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445). Conversely, it leads the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995) by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959) by 5.8%. The Vega Frontier Edition’s 73,370 average places it 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379), 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098), 2.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768), and 3.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). These deltas show that while the Vega Frontier Edition is competitive within its own tier, it sits in a lower performance band than the CMP 40HX.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA CMP 40HX is the faster card in every shared benchmark. With two wins out of two head-to-head tests, it outperforms the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition by 22.7% in OpenCL and 8.3% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 85,637 versus 73,370 represents a 16.7% overall advantage, and its 93rd percentile ranking versus the Vega Frontier Edition’s 91st percentile reinforces that gap.

Buyers should choose the NVIDIA CMP 40HX if their priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The 22.7% OpenCL lead is particularly decisive, making it the better option for tasks that leverage that API, such as general-purpose GPU compute or machine learning inference. The card’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for many compute tasks, and its 185 W TDP is notably lower than the Vega Frontier Edition’s 300 W, suggesting greater efficiency per watt.

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is the better choice only in specific scenarios. With 16 GB of HBM2 memory and a 2048-bit bus width, it offers 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth—slightly higher than the CMP 40HX’s 448.0 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads that require larger frame buffers, the Vega Frontier Edition’s double the VRAM capacity (16 GB vs. 8 GB) could be a deciding factor. Additionally, it includes display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the CMP 40HX has none. If a user needs both compute and display functionality from a single card, the Vega Frontier Edition is the only option here.

However, the Vega Frontier Edition’s 13.11 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is theoretically higher than the CMP 40HX’s 7.603 TFLOPS, yet the benchmark results show the NVIDIA card winning in practice. This discrepancy suggests that architectural efficiency and driver optimization matter more than raw shader count. The Vega Frontier Edition has 4096 shading units versus 2304 on the CMP 40HX, but that doubling of compute units does not translate to real-world wins in these tests.

In summary, the CMP 40HX is the performance leader and the better buy for pure compute. The Vega Frontier Edition retains relevance for users who need 16 GB of VRAM, display outputs, or higher raw FP32 throughput, but the benchmark data shows it is consistently slower in the workloads tested.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 40HX wins with a score of 93,395 versus the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition’s 76,111, a 22.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The CMP 40HX scores 77,879 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Vega Frontier Edition scores 71,937, giving the NVIDIA card an 8.3% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition have any benchmark not available to the CMP 40HX?

A: Yes, the Vega Frontier Edition has a Geekbench Metal score of 72,061. The CMP 40HX lacks a Metal result, as it has no display outputs and is not intended for that ecosystem.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The CMP 40HX has an average benchmark score of 85,637, while the Vega Frontier Edition averages 73,370. That is a 12,267-point difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The CMP 40HX sits at the 93rd percentile, while the Vega Frontier Edition is at the 91st percentile.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has 16 GB of HBM2 memory, double the 8 GB of GDDR6 on the NVIDIA CMP 40HX.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s. Memory type, capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the AMD card on paper.

Clock speeds also differ. The CMP 40HX has a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz, while the Vega Frontier Edition runs at 1382 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card and 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for the AMD card.

The compute configuration is starkly different. The CMP 40HX has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega Frontier Edition has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rates are similar (105.6 GPixel/s vs. 102.4 GPixel/s), but the texture rate favors AMD massively: 409.6 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput also favors AMD at 13.11 TFLOPS versus 7.603 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 26.21 TFLOPS versus 15.21 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The CMP 40HX has a 185 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Vega Frontier Edition has a 300 W TDP, dual 8-pin connectors, and a suggested 700 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is shorter at 229 mm versus 267 mm, and thinner at 35 mm versus an unspecified width for AMD. Both are dual-slot and 111 mm tall.

The bus interface is a major distinction: the CMP 40HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, while the Vega Frontier Edition uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The NVIDIA card has no display outputs; the AMD card has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support also differs, with the CMP 40HX supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 on the Vega Frontier Edition. The CMP 40HX also includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Vega Frontier Edition.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU106 chip fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition uses the GCN 5.0 architecture, with the Vega 10 chip built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. The process node advantage goes to NVIDIA (12 nm vs. 14 nm), but AMD’s die is larger at 495 mm² versus 445 mm², and houses more transistors: 12,500 million versus 10,800 million. Transistor density is nearly identical, with AMD at 25.3M per mm² and NVIDIA at 24.3M per mm².

The CMP 40HX is part of NVIDIA’s Mining GPUs generation, released on 2021-02-24. The Vega Frontier Edition belongs to the Radeon Pro Vega (Vega Series) generation, released on 2017-06-26. The NVIDIA card is a standalone product with no predecessor or successor listed. The AMD card’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Polaris, and its successor is the Radeon Pro Navi.

Turing brings dedicated hardware that GCN 5.0 lacks entirely. The CMP 40HX includes 36 RT cores for ray tracing and 288 tensor cores for AI acceleration. The Vega Frontier Edition has neither, relying solely on its 4096 shading units for all compute. This explains why the CMP 40HX can achieve competitive or superior benchmark scores despite having roughly half the shading units and less than 60% of the FP32 throughput.

The memory architecture reflects the generational shift. The CMP 40HX uses conventional GDDR6 on a 256-bit interface, while the Vega Frontier Edition uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit interface. The HBM2 design delivers higher bandwidth per pin, resulting in 483.8 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s, but the NVIDIA card achieves its performance with less memory and a narrower bus.

The Vega Frontier Edition’s GCN architecture is compute-heavy on paper, with double the TMUs and texture rate, but Turing’s scheduler and cache hierarchy appear to translate better into real-world OpenCL and Vulkan results. The presence of tensor cores on the CMP 40HX may also benefit certain compute workloads, even if the benchmarks here do not isolate that functionality. The CMP 40HX’s PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a curious limitation—likely a mining-specific design choice—but it did not prevent the card from winning both head-to-head tests. The Vega Frontier Edition’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is far more conventional for a workstation card, but the bandwidth advantage did not manifest in these particular benchmarks.