NVIDIA CMP 40HX vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the NVIDIA CMP 40HX. Across the two available tests, the A5500 takes 2 wins, while the CMP 40HX records 0 wins. This is not a close contest by any measure, and the margins are substantial enough that the CMP 40HX cannot be positioned as a performance alternative in these workloads.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5500 scores 174,637, while the CMP 40HX manages 93,395. That is an 87% advantage for the A5500. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A5500 reaches 155,797 versus 77,879 for the CMP 40HX, a 100.1% difference. In both cases, the A5500 more than doubles the CMP 40HX in the Vulkan test, and nearly doubles it in OpenCL.

The CMP 40HX does have a niche, but it is not in general compute performance. As a Mining GPU product, it was designed without display outputs, meaning it has no video connectivity at all. This makes it unsuitable for any workstation task that requires visual output, regardless of raw compute scores. The A5500, by contrast, provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a fully functional workstation card.

For users focused on compute workloads that do not require display output, the CMP 40HX still trails by a wide margin. Its 7.603 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is less than a quarter of the A5500's 34.10 TFLOPS. The A5500 also leads in memory bandwidth, with 768.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s. Every measurable performance indicator in the database favors the A5500.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies and different manufacturing generations. The RTX A5500 is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip with the older Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This process gap alone explains a significant portion of the performance difference, as the A5500 packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, while the CMP 40HX contains 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die.

Transistor density tells the story more precisely: the A5500 achieves 45.1M transistors per mm², while the CMP 40HX sits at 24.3M per mm². The A5500 nearly doubles the density, allowing it to fit far more compute resources into a similar physical footprint.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The CMP 40HX has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also favor the A5500, with 80 RT cores versus 36. Tensor core counts are closer in relative terms but still favor the A5500, with 320 tensor cores against 288.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The A5500 uses a 384 bit bus with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 16 Gbps effective, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The CMP 40HX uses a 256 bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 448.0 GB/s. The A5500 offers three times the memory capacity and roughly 71% more bandwidth.

Clocks are the one area where the CMP 40HX does not trail. Its base clock is 1470 MHz versus 1080 MHz for the A5500, and its boost clock is 1650 MHz versus 1665 MHz. The CMP 40HX actually boosts 15 MHz lower than the A5500, but its base clock is substantially higher. This does not compensate for the massive difference in shader count and memory throughput.

The interface situation is also telling. The A5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the standard for workstation connectivity. The CMP 40HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, a severely limited interface that would bottleneck data transfers in any compute workload that relies on host communication. This reinforces the CMP 40HX's purpose as a mining-focused product where sustained local compute matters more than host I/O.

Power characteristics differ as well. The A5500 has a 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply. The CMP 40HX has a 185 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU. Despite consuming more power, the A5500 delivers far higher performance per watt in the recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the superior product in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 87% and 100.1%, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The CMP 40HX sits in the 93rd percentile, which sounds close but represents a much lower absolute score range.

The A5500's average benchmark score is 165,217, while the CMP 40HX averages 85,637. That is a difference of nearly 79,580 points, or roughly 93% higher average performance. No workload category in the database favors the CMP 40HX.

For workstation users, the A5500 is the only viable choice between these two. It has display outputs, 24 GB of memory, modern Ampere architecture, and benchmark results that place it alongside cards like the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation. Its nearest rival in the database, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, scores 164,894, just 0.2% behind the A5500. The A5500 also leads the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.7%, a notable result for a non-datacenter card.

The CMP 40HX, by contrast, sits in a different performance class entirely. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 at 87,108, which is 1.7% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 at 87,445, which is 2.1% ahead. The CMP 40HX does beat the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 5.8%, but those are lower-tier workstation cards.

The CMP 40HX's launch MSRP was 699 USD. It offers no display outputs, a mining-focused feature set, and benchmark scores roughly half of the A5500. The A5500, despite being end-of-life, remains a fully featured workstation GPU that outperforms the CMP 40HX across the board.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the CMP 40HX comes out ahead. Users who need compute performance, memory capacity, or display connectivity should choose the A5500. The CMP 40HX is only relevant in the narrow context of mining operations, and even there, its lower memory bandwidth and compute throughput make it a less capable tool than the A5500.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher benchmark scores, the RTX A5500 or the CMP 40HX?

A: The RTX A5500 wins both recorded benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 174,637 versus 93,395 for the CMP 40HX, an 87% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan it scores 155,797 versus 77,879, a 100.1% advantage.

Q: Does the CMP 40HX support display output?

A: No. The CMP 40HX has no display outputs at all. The RTX A5500 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The RTX A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384 bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The CMP 40HX has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The RTX A5500 is in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The CMP 40HX is in the 93rd percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the CMP 40HX wins?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the RTX A5500 and 0 wins for the CMP 40HX across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How does the CMP 40HX compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The CMP 40HX trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 by 1.7% and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 by 2.1%. It leads the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 by 4.4% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X by 5.8%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test establishes the baseline gap. The RTX A5500 posts 174,637 points, while the CMP 40HX delivers 93,395 points. The 87% delta places this firmly in the A5500's favor. For context, the A5500's nearest rival in the overall database, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, scores 164,894, meaning the A5500's OpenCL result exceeds even its closest competitor by a wide margin.

The Geekbench Vulkan test widens the gap even further. The A5500 scores 155,797, while the CMP 40HX scores 77,879. The 100.1% delta means the A5500 more than doubles the CMP 40HX in this workload. This is the single largest margin recorded between the two cards.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The A5500 averages 165,217 across all recorded tests, placing it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. The CMP 40HX averages 85,637, which is 2.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7600.

Pixel and texture throughput tell the same story. The A5500 achieves 159.8 GPixel/s and 532.8 GTexel/s, while the CMP 40HX manages 105.6 GPixel/s and 237.6 GTexel/s. The A5500 leads by 51% in pixel rate and 124% in texture rate.

FP32 compute is where the gap becomes most dramatic. The A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS, while the CMP 40HX delivers 7.603 TFLOPS. The A5500 is roughly 4.5 times faster in single-precision compute. FP16 performance is closer, with the A5500 at 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) and the CMP 40HX at 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1), but the A5500 still leads by more than double.

The CMP 40HX's one advantage in clocks does not translate into benchmark wins. Its 1470 MHz base clock and 1650 MHz boost clock are higher than the A5500's 1080 MHz base, but the A5500's 1665 MHz boost clock edges out the CMP 40HX by 15 MHz. The massive difference in shading units, 10,240 versus 2,304, overwhelms any clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The RTX A5500 uses the GA102 chip on Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The CMP 40HX uses the TU106 chip on Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 10,800 million, and die sizes are 628 mm² versus 445 mm².

Shading units number 10,240 on the A5500 versus 2,304 on the CMP 40HX. Texture mapping units are 320 versus 144. ROPs are 96 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 80 versus 36. Tensor cores are 320 versus 288.

Memory capacity is 24 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR6. Bus width is 384 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth is 768.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s. Memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective on the A5500, versus 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective on the CMP 40HX.

Base clocks are 1080 MHz on the A5500 versus 1470 MHz on the CMP 40HX. Boost clocks are 1665 MHz versus 1650 MHz. FP32 compute is 34.10 TFLOPS versus 7.603 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 15.21 TFLOPS (2:1).

Pixel rate is 159.8 GPixel/s versus 105.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 532.8 GTexel/s versus 237.6 GTexel/s. TDP is 230 W versus 185 W. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 450 W.

The physical dimensions differ modestly. The A5500 is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall. The CMP 40HX is 229 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a listed width of 35 mm. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 8-pin power connector.

The bus interface is a major differentiator: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the A5500 versus PCIe 1.0 x4 on the CMP 40HX. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the A5500, with none on the CMP 40HX. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates are 2022-03-21 for the A5500 and 2021-02-24 for the CMP 40HX. Both are end-of-life. The A5500's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. The CMP 40HX has no recorded predecessor or successor. The A5500 has no launch MSRP in the database; the CMP 40HX launched at 699 USD.