NVIDIA CMP 40HX vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance according to the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 delivers 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA CMP 40HX delivers 7.603 TFLOPS. This represents a roughly 6.4x advantage for the RTX 4080 in raw single-precision compute throughput.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The CMP 40HX has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X memory, also on a 256-bit bus, but with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is 60% higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database?

A: The CMP 40HX sits at the 93rd percentile, while the RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile. This is notable because the RTX 4080 wins every head-to-head benchmark, yet the CMP 40HX has a higher overall percentile placement.

Q: What does the average benchmark score say about each GPU?

A: The CMP 40HX has an average benchmark score of 85,637 across its recorded tests. The RTX 4080 has an average score of 54,247, but this includes many more tests, some of which are legacy DirectX workloads where the newer architecture does not excel.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214,739 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 56.5% higher than the CMP 40HX's score of 93,395. This is one of the two head-to-head benchmark tests recorded.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The CMP 40HX has a TDP of 185 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4080 has a TDP of 320 W and requires a 700 W suggested power supply. The RTX 4080 draws 135 W more power.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the RTX 4080 is the overwhelming winner in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the CMP 40HX occupies a curious position in the database because of its narrower test set. For any user looking at compute workloads represented by OpenCL and Vulkan, the RTX 4080 is the only rational choice. Its scores are 56.5% higher in OpenCL and 70.5% higher in Vulkan, which are massive margins.

However, the CMP 40HX is an end-of-life mining GPU with no display outputs. It was designed for a specific purpose, and its benchmark profile reflects that. The RTX 4080 is also end-of-life, but it was a mainstream consumer card with full display output support, which makes it far more versatile.

The percentile rankings complicate the story. The CMP 40HX sits at 93rd percentile versus 86th for the RTX 4080. This suggests the database's percentile calculation weights differently across various test suites. The RTX 4080 participates in more tests, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, where its scores are modest (370, 204, 314, and 132 respectively). Those legacy tests drag down its average.

For a buyer choosing between these two today, the RTX 4080 wins on every measurable performance metric. The CMP 40HX offers no advantage except lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint, but those are not enough to offset a 70% deficit in Vulkan performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. Both are decisive wins for the RTX 4080.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 40HX scores 93,395 while the RTX 4080 scores 214,739. The delta is 56.5% in favor of the RTX 4080. This test stresses general compute throughput, and the RTX 4080's 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 7.603 TFLOPS explains the gap. The CMP 40HX was built on Turing architecture, which is two generations older than Ada Lovelace.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens further. The CMP 40HX scores 77,879, while the RTX 4080 reaches 263,779. That is a 70.5% difference. Vulkan workloads often scale with shading unit count, and the RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units versus 2,304 on the CMP 40HX. The RTX 4080 also has 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores, compared to 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores on the CMP 40HX.

The wins tally is 2 to 0 in favor of the RTX 4080. There are no benchmark categories where the CMP 40HX outperforms its rival. The closest the CMP 40HX comes is in OpenCL, where its deficit is 56.5%, but even that is a commanding lead for the newer card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category recorded in the database.

The CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip on a 12 nm process with 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die. The RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on a 5 nm process with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. The RTX 4080 packs over 4x more transistors into a smaller die, which reflects the density improvement from the newer node.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The CMP 40HX has a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz. The RTX 4080 boosts to 2505 MHz from a base of 2205 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the CMP 40HX versus 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4080.

Memory specifications show a 2x capacity gap: 8 GB versus 16 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RTX 4080's GDDR6X memory achieves 716.8 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s for the CMP 40HX's GDDR6.

The physical dimensions differ significantly. The CMP 40HX is 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, fitting a dual-slot design. The RTX 4080 is 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide, requiring a triple-slot form factor.

Power requirements also differ. The CMP 40HX demands 185 W with a 450 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. The RTX 4080 draws 320 W with a 700 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin connector.

The CMP 40HX has no display outputs and uses a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface. The RTX 4080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs over PCIe 4.0 x16.

The launch MSRP for the CMP 40HX was 699 USD. The RTX 4080 launched at 1,199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The CMP 40HX is built on Turing, NVIDIA's 12 nm architecture from 2018. The RTX 4080 uses Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's 5 nm architecture from 2022. This represents two full architecture generations of advancement.

The transistor count tells the story: 10,800 million for Turing versus 45,900 million for Ada Lovelace. Transistor density jumps from 24.3M per mm² to 121.1M per mm², a 5x improvement on the same foundry, TSMC.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That is a 4.2x increase in shaders and a 2.1x increase in TMUs.

Ray tracing cores increase from 36 to 76. Tensor cores increase from 288 to 304. The FP16 performance ratio changes from 2:1 on the CMP 40HX (15.21 TFLOPS) to 1:1 on the RTX 4080 (48.74 TFLOPS), meaning the newer card does not sacrifice half-rate FP16 performance.

The RTX 4080's pixel rate is 280.6 GPixel/s versus 105.6 GPixel/s for the CMP 40HX. Texture rate is 761.5 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s. These are 2.7x and 3.2x improvements respectively.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The CMP 40HX is from the "Mining GPUs" generation, while the RTX 4080 is from the GeForce 40 generation. The CMP 40HX has no predecessor or successor listed; the RTX 4080's predecessor is GeForce 30 and its successor is GeForce 50.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 wins everywhere that performance is measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 56.5%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 70.5%. The data shows no benchmark category where the CMP 40HX takes a win.

The RTX 4080 is the choice for any workload involving modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or general compute. Its 16 GB of GDDR6X memory at 716.8 GB/s provides double the capacity and 60% more bandwidth than the CMP 40HX. Its 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the CMP 40HX's 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores cannot match in throughput.

The CMP 40HX has no display outputs, meaning it cannot drive a monitor. This makes it unsuitable for gaming or any visual output workload. Its only recorded advantages are lower power consumption (185 W versus 320 W), a smaller physical footprint (229 mm versus 310 mm length), and a lower launch MSRP (699 USD versus 1,199 USD).

The CMP 40HX's higher percentile ranking (93rd versus 86th) is an artifact of its limited benchmark participation. It only has two recorded tests, both compute-oriented, where it performs reasonably well. The RTX 4080 participates in ten tests, including legacy DirectX 9 through 12 workloads where its scores are low (370, 204, 314, and 132). These drag down its average despite its dominance in modern compute tests.

For a mining operation or a compute-only workload that does not require display output, the CMP 40HX could still be viable, but the performance data says the RTX 4080 delivers more than double the compute throughput in every recorded test. The power efficiency of the CMP 40HX cannot compensate for a 70.5% deficit in Vulkan performance. The RTX 4080 is the definitive winner in this comparison.