CMP 40HX vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with CMP 40HX, including specs and performance data.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
3.04

CMP 40HX outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 478% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking766305
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data19.02
Power efficiencyno data6.56
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreTU106
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years ago)25 February 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores5122304
Core clock speed720 MHz1470 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistorsno data10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data185 Watt
Texture fill rateno data237.6
Floating-point processing powerno data7.603 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data448.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.2
CUDA-7.5

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 HD18
−456%
100−110
+456%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−463%
90−95
+463%
Hitman 3 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−465%
130−140
+465%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−464%
220−230
+464%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−463%
90−95
+463%
Hitman 3 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−465%
130−140
+465%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
−456%
150−160
+456%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−464%
220−230
+464%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−456%
50−55
+456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−463%
90−95
+463%
Hitman 3 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−465%
130−140
+465%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−400%
30−33
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−464%
220−230
+464%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Hitman 3 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−463%
45−50
+463%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
−456%
100−105
+456%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and CMP 40HX compete in popular games:

  • CMP 40HX is 456% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.04 17.57
Recency 14 January 2014 25 February 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

CMP 40HX has a 478% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The CMP 40HX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while CMP 40HX is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA CMP 40HX
CMP 40HX

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 32 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.