CMP 40HX vs Radeon Pro 5500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 5500M with CMP 40HX, including specs and performance data.

Pro 5500M
2019
8 GB GDDR6, 85 Watt
16.10

CMP 40HX outperforms Pro 5500M by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking365278
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data11.37
Power efficiency14.599.44
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNavi 14TU106
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date13 November 2019 (6 years ago)25 February 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores15362304
Core clock speed1000 MHz1470 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors6,400 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt185 Watt
Texture fill rate139.2237.6
Floating-point processing power4.454 TFLOPS7.603 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs96144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36
L1 Cacheno data2.3 MB
L2 Cache2 MB4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x4
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

Pro 5500M 16.10
CMP 40HX 22.68
+40.9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro 5500M 6729
Samples: 277
CMP 40HX 9343
+38.8%
Samples: 21

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD57
−40.4%
80−85
+40.4%
1440p59
−35.6%
80−85
+35.6%
4K32
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data8.74
1440pno data8.74
4Kno data15.53

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 90−95
−30.4%
120−130
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 76
−31.6%
100−105
+31.6%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
−30.4%
120−130
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−38.9%
75−80
+38.9%
Fortnite 90−95
−33.3%
120−130
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−39.7%
95−100
+39.7%
Forza Horizon 5 31
−29%
40−45
+29%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
−39.3%
85−90
+39.3%
Valorant 130−140
−37.4%
180−190
+37.4%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 62
−37.1%
85−90
+37.1%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
−30.4%
120−130
+30.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 208
−39.4%
290−300
+39.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Dota 2 111
−35.1%
150−160
+35.1%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−38.9%
75−80
+38.9%
Fortnite 90−95
−33.3%
120−130
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−39.7%
95−100
+39.7%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
−37.3%
70−75
+37.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 69
−37.7%
95−100
+37.7%
Metro Exodus 37
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
−39.3%
85−90
+39.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68
−39.7%
95−100
+39.7%
Valorant 130−140
−37.4%
180−190
+37.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59
−35.6%
80−85
+35.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Dota 2 107
−40.2%
150−160
+40.2%
Far Cry 5 55
−36.4%
75−80
+36.4%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−39.7%
95−100
+39.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
−39.3%
85−90
+39.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
−28.2%
50−55
+28.2%
Valorant 28
−25%
35−40
+25%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 90−95
−33.3%
120−130
+33.3%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 118
−35.6%
160−170
+35.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Metro Exodus 22
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 107
−40.2%
150−160
+40.2%
Valorant 160−170
−35.8%
220−230
+35.8%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 47
−38.3%
65−70
+38.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Far Cry 5 40
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 71
−40.8%
100−105
+40.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
−40%
35−40
+40%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Valorant 90−95
−30.4%
120−130
+30.4%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Dota 2 54
−38.9%
75−80
+38.9%
Far Cry 5 20
−35%
27−30
+35%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−25%
35−40
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%

This is how Pro 5500M and CMP 40HX compete in popular games:

  • CMP 40HX is 40% faster in 1080p
  • CMP 40HX is 36% faster in 1440p
  • CMP 40HX is 41% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.10 22.68
Recency 13 November 2019 25 February 2021
Chip lithography 7 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 185 Watt

Pro 5500M has a 71% more advanced lithography process, and 118% lower power consumption.

CMP 40HX, on the other hand, has a 41% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The CMP 40HX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 5500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while CMP 40HX is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 310 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 75 votes

Rate CMP 40HX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 5500M or CMP 40HX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.