NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA CMP 40HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU delivers the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, while the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 93,395 in the same test. That puts the A10M ahead by 44.8%.

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

A: The A10M sits in the 96th percentile, while the CMP 40HX sits in the 93rd percentile. Both are well above average, but the A10M is closer to the top of the overall distribution.

Q: What is the closest rival to the A10M in benchmark performance?

A: The nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, with an average score of 135,218, a delta of 0% compared to the A10M's 135,230. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 also lands nearby at 135,396, a delta of -0.1%.

Q: What is the closest rival to the CMP 40HX?

A: The closest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, with an average score of 87,108, which is -1.7% relative to the CMP 40HX's 93,395 OpenCL result. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is also close at 87,445, a delta of -2.1%.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The CMP 40HX has a recorded release date of February 24, 2021, while no release date is listed for the A10M.

Q: Do either of these cards have display outputs?

A: No. Both the A10M and the CMP 40HX list "No outputs" for display connections, which reflects their compute and mining-oriented designs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and foundries, which explains much of their performance gap. The A10M is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The CMP 40HX, by contrast, uses the TU106 chip from the Turing architecture, made on TSMC's 12 nm process. It contains 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die, for a density of 24.3M per mm². The A10M's newer and denser process is a clear architectural advantage.

The compute resources also differ sharply. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 224 tensor cores. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 36 ray tracing cores, and 288 tensor cores. Note the reversal: the CMP 40HX actually has more tensor cores (288 vs. 224), but far fewer shading units and ray tracing cores. The A10M's raw shader count is more than three times that of the CMP 40HX.

Clock behavior also differs. The CMP 40HX has a higher base clock at 1470 MHz versus 975 MHz for the A10M, and a slightly higher boost clock at 1650 MHz versus 1635 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the CMP 40HX cannot overcome the A10M's much larger execution width. The memory subsystem tells a similar story: the A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320 bit bus, while the CMP 40HX uses 8 GB on a 256 bit bus. The A10M's bandwidth is 500.2 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s for the CMP 40HX.

Power and physical design differ as well. The A10M is rated at 150 W TDP, is single-slot, and uses an 8-pin EPS connector. The CMP 40HX is rated at 185 W, is dual-slot, uses a single 8-pin connector, and is physically shorter. Both are listed with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The A10M runs on PCIe 4.0 x16, while the CMP 40HX uses only PCIe 1.0 x4, a major interface limitation for the mining card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The A10M scores 135,230 against the CMP 40HX's 93,395. That is a 44.8% difference in the A10M's favor. This is the only recorded shared test, so all conclusions about relative performance rest on this single measurement.

The margin is substantial. A 44.8% advantage in a compute workload is not a small edge; it reflects the difference between a server-class Ampere part with 7,168 shading units and a mid-range Turing mining part with 2,304 shading units. Even though the CMP 40HX boosts to a higher clock (1650 MHz vs. 1635 MHz), the A10M's wider architecture and larger memory capacity dominate in this OpenCL test.

The CMP 40HX has a second benchmark in its file, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 77,879. There is no Vulkan score recorded for the A10M, so a cross-API comparison cannot be made from the database. The Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score, which may suggest API-specific scaling, but without an A10M Vulkan result, no direct conclusion is possible.

The wins tally is one for the A10M and zero for the CMP 40HX. The percentile ranks reinforce this: the A10M's 96th percentile versus the CMP 40HX's 93rd percentile. Both are strong performers in absolute terms, but the A10M sits closer to the very top of the GPU hierarchy.

The nearest rival data places each card in its own competitive neighborhood. The A10M trades blows with the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, delta 0%) and the Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, delta -0.1%). The CMP 40HX, meanwhile, is grouped with the Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108, delta -1.7%) and the Quadro GP100 (87,445, delta -2.1%). The gap between these two neighborhoods is roughly the same as the head-to-head delta: about 45%. The A10M is not just faster; it is competing in a different performance tier.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GA102 (A10M) vs. TU106 (CMP 40HX)
• Architecture: Ampere vs. Turing
• Generation: Server Ampere (Axx) vs. Mining GPUs
• Process Node: 8 nm vs. 12 nm
• Foundry: Samsung vs. TSMC
• Transistors: 28,300 million vs. 10,800 million
• Die Size: 628 mm² vs. 445 mm²
• Transistor Density: 45.1M / mm² vs. 24.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 975 MHz vs. 1470 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1635 MHz vs. 1650 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1563 MHz / 12.5 Gbps effective vs. 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 20 GB vs. 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 320 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 500.2 GB/s vs. 448.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 7168 vs. 2304
• TMUs: 224 vs. 144
• ROPs: 80 vs. 64
• RT Cores: 56 vs. 36
• Tensor Cores: 224 vs. 288
• Pixel Rate: 130.8 GPixel/s vs. 105.6 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 366.2 GTexel/s vs. 237.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 23.44 TFLOPS vs. 7.603 TFLOPS
• FP16: 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) vs. 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 150 W vs. 185 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs. Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: 8-pin EPS vs. 1x 8-pin
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 1.0 x4
• Dimensions: 267 mm / 10.5 inches length, 112 mm / 4.4 inches height vs. 229 mm / 9 inches length, 111 mm / 4.4 inches height, 35 mm / 1.4 inches width
• Release Date: not listed vs. 2021-02-24
• Launch MSRP: not listed vs. 699 USD

The TDP difference is notable: the A10M delivers far more compute at 150 W than the CMP 40HX does at 185 W. The A10M is also a single-slot card despite its larger die, while the CMP 40HX is dual-slot. The CMP 40HX's PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is a severe bottleneck for data transfer, especially compared to the A10M's PCIe 4.0 x16.

The FP16 comparison is interesting. The A10M supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so both are 23.44 TFLOPS. The CMP 40HX has a 2:1 ratio, giving 15.21 TFLOPS FP16 versus 7.603 TFLOPS FP32. In absolute FP16 terms, the A10M is still ahead by roughly 54%, but the CMP 40HX's ratio shows a Turing-era design that prioritized half-precision throughput relative to its own FP32.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute performance. The A10M beats the CMP 40HX by 44.8% in the only shared benchmark, ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (96th vs. 93rd), and offers more memory, more bandwidth, and more shading units. The CMP 40HX does have a higher boost clock and more tensor cores, but neither advantage translates into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

The A10M is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, memory capacity, or power efficiency. Its 20 GB frame buffer and 500.2 GB/s bandwidth far exceed the CMP 40HX's 8 GB and 448.0 GB/s. Its 150 W TDP is also lower than the CMP 40HX's 185 W, despite the A10M delivering nearly three times the FP32 throughput (23.44 TFLOPS vs. 7.603 TFLOPS). The single-slot form factor adds another practical advantage.

The CMP 40HX is not without merit, but its strengths are niche. It has a higher base clock, a slightly higher boost clock, more tensor cores, and a shorter physical length. Its launch MSRP was 699 USD. However, its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface, smaller memory pool, and lower compute scores make it hard to recommend for any workload that resembles the OpenCL benchmark recorded here.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the A10M wins the head-to-head, and wins by a wide margin.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA A10M: The A10M wins in every category where the database provides direct comparison data. It is 44.8% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL. It has more memory (20 GB vs. 8 GB), wider memory bus (320 bit vs. 256 bit), higher memory bandwidth (500.2 GB/s vs. 448.0 GB/s), more shading units (7168 vs. 2304), more TMUs (224 vs. 144), more ROPs (80 vs. 64), more RT cores (56 vs. 36), higher pixel rate (130.8 GPixel/s vs. 105.6 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (366.2 GTexel/s vs. 237.6 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 (23.44 TFLOPS vs. 7.603 TFLOPS). It also has a lower TDP (150 W vs. 185 W), a faster bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 1.0 x4), and a single-slot design. The A10M's FP16 throughput is also higher in absolute terms (23.44 TFLOPS vs. 15.21 TFLOPS), even though the CMP 40HX has a better FP16-to-FP32 ratio.

NVIDIA CMP 40HX: The CMP 40HX wins on a smaller set of metrics. Its base clock is higher (1470 MHz vs. 975 MHz), its boost clock is slightly higher (1650 MHz vs. 1635 MHz), and its memory runs at a higher effective speed (14 Gbps vs. 12.5 Gbps). It has more tensor cores (288 vs. 224). It is physically shorter (229 mm vs. 267 mm), which could matter in constrained chassis. It also has a recorded release date and a launch MSRP of 699 USD, whereas the A10M has neither in the database. None of these advantages, however, show up as a win in the recorded benchmark data. The CMP 40HX's higher clocks and extra tensor cores do not overcome the A10M's architectural lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test.