NVIDIA CMP 40HX vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

NVIDIA H200 NVL and NVIDIA CMP 40HX occupy opposite ends of the database’s performance spectrum, separated by architecture, memory, and purpose. The H200 NVL is a Hopper-generation server accelerator with 141 GB of HBM3e, while the CMP 40HX is a Turing-era mining card with 8 GB of GDDR6. Their recorded benchmark results show a 258.6% gap in OpenCL performance, but each card has distinct characteristics that matter for different workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference between the two cards in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334,891 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 93,395 points. The H200 NVL leads by 258.6%, making it the decisive winner in this benchmark.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 40HX has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: The H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W and recommends a 1000 W power supply with an 8-pin EPS connector. The CMP 40HX has a TDP of 185 W, recommends a 450 W power supply, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The H200 NVL, built on a 5 nm process, packs 80,000 million transistors into an 814 mm² die, yielding 98.3M transistors per mm². The CMP 40HX, on a 12 nm process, has 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die, for 24.3M per mm².

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: The H200 NVL is listed as Active in production status, released in November 2024. The CMP 40HX is End-of-life, having been released in February 2021.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The H200 NVL’s average benchmark score is 334,891, placing it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The CMP 40HX has an average score of 85,637, which puts it at the 93rd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip under the Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 80,000 million transistors into a 814 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The CMP 40HX is built on the TU106 chip with the Turing architecture, using a 12 nm process at the same foundry. Its 10,800 million transistors sit on a 445 mm² die, for a density of 24.3M per mm². This represents a 4x advantage in transistor density for the H200 NVL, driven by the more advanced process node.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The H200 NVL features 141 GB of HBM3e across a 6144-bit interface, yielding 4.89 TB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 40HX uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 448.0 GB/s. That is a 10.9x bandwidth advantage for the H200 NVL, which is critical for large-scale compute tasks.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It includes 528 tensor cores, and its FP32 throughput is 60.32 TFLOPS. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, with FP32 performance of 7.603 TFLOPS. The H200 NVL delivers 7.9x higher FP32 throughput, but the CMP 40HX has more ROPs (64 vs. 24), which benefits pixel output.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The CMP 40HX has a higher base clock at 1470 MHz versus 1365 MHz for the H200 NVL, though the H200 NVL boosts higher at 1785 MHz versus 1650 MHz. Memory clocks are also higher on the CMP 40HX at 14 Gbps effective versus 6.4 Gbps effective for the H200 NVL, though the H200 NVL’s massive bus width more than compensates.

API support differs as well. The CMP 40HX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, as it is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs. Both cards have no display outputs, but the CMP 40HX retains graphics API compatibility.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the H200 NVL scores 334,891 against the CMP 40HX’s 93,395. The delta is 258.6% in favor of the H200 NVL. This is a massive margin, reflecting the gap in shading units, memory bandwidth, and process technology.

Looking at the H200 NVL’s nearest rivals, its average score of 334,891 places it 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200 (345,482) and 9.4% behind the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC (369,831). It beats the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994) by 5.3% and the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 13.2%. These deltas place the H200 NVL at the top tier of server accelerators, just shy of the latest Blackwell parts.

The CMP 40HX, with an average score of 85,637, sits in a lower performance band. It is 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108) and 2.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445). It leads the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995) by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959) by 5.8%. This places it among mid-range workstation and mining-oriented GPUs, with a 93rd percentile ranking.

The data shows no benchmark where the CMP 40HX wins. The wins tally is 1 for the H200 NVL and 0 for the CMP 40HX. The OpenCL result is the only metric, and it is overwhelmingly one-sided.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process node: 5 nm (H200 NVL) vs. 12 nm (CMP 40HX)
• Transistors: 80,000 million vs. 10,800 million
• Die size: 814 mm² vs. 445 mm²
• Transistor density: 98.3M / mm² vs. 24.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1365 MHz vs. 1470 MHz
• Boost clock: 1785 MHz vs. 1650 MHz
• Memory clock: 6.4 Gbps effective vs. 14 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 141 GB vs. 8 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e vs. GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 6144 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 4.89 TB/s vs. 448.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 16,896 vs. 2,304
• TMUs: 528 vs. 144
• ROPs: 24 vs. 64
• RT cores: N/A vs. 36
• Tensor cores: 528 vs. 288
• Pixel rate: 42.84 GPixel/s vs. 105.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 942.5 GTexel/s vs. 237.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 60.32 TFLOPS vs. 7.603 TFLOPS
• FP16: 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) vs. 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W vs. 185 W
• Power connectors: 8-pin EPS vs. 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W vs. 450 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs. PCIe 1.0 x4
• APIs: N/A vs. DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4
• Length: 267 mm vs. 229 mm
• Width: N/A vs. 35 mm
• Production status: Active vs. End-of-life
• Release date: November 2024 vs. February 2021
• Average benchmark score: 334,891 vs. 85,637
• Percentile: 100 vs. 93

The H200 NVL has no launch MSRP recorded, while the CMP 40HX has a launch MSRP of 699 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The H200 NVL wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 60.32 TFLOPS is 7.9x the CMP 40HX’s 7.603 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 120.6 TFLOPS is 7.9x the CMP 40HX’s 15.21 TFLOPS. This makes it the clear choice for AI training, scientific simulation, and any workload that scales with raw floating-point performance. The 141 GB HBM3e memory pool with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth enables it to handle datasets that would exceed the CMP 40HX’s 8 GB capacity by an order of magnitude. Its 100th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms its position at the top of the database’s performance hierarchy.

The CMP 40HX wins in specific areas that favor its architecture. It has higher pixel rate at 105.6 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s for the H200 NVL, a 2.5x advantage. This comes from its 64 ROPs versus the H200 NVL’s 24 ROPs. For rasterization-heavy tasks, the CMP 40HX is more efficient per watt, as its 185 W TDP is less than a third of the H200 NVL’s 600 W. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the H200 NVL has no graphics API support. The CMP 40HX’s 36 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing, a feature absent from the H200 NVL’s specifications.

The CMP 40HX also has a higher base clock (1470 MHz vs. 1365 MHz) and a narrower, shorter physical footprint at 229 mm versus 267 mm. Its PCIe 1.0 x4 interface is older and narrower, but its simpler power requirements (450 W PSU vs. 1000 W) make it easier to integrate into existing systems with modest power budgets. The 93rd percentile ranking shows it is still above the median GPU, but its end-of-life status limits long-term viability.

For users seeking maximum compute density and memory capacity, the H200 NVL is the unambiguous choice. For applications that need graphics API compatibility, ray tracing, or high pixel throughput with lower power draw, the CMP 40HX retains relevance despite its age. The benchmark data, however, shows no scenario where the CMP 40HX outperforms the H200 NVL in OpenCL, and the 258.6% delta underscores the generational gap between Turing and Hopper.