CMP 40HX vs PRO W7900 for Blender
Compare CMP 40HX 8 GB and PRO W7900 48 GB for Blender Cycles. See benchmark performance, VRAM, power ratings and checked prices side by side. PRO W7900 48 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 209.1%.
Fastest in Cycles
PRO W7900 48 GB
209% faster than CMP 40HX 8 GB
Most VRAM
PRO W7900 48 GB
500% more VRAM than CMP 40HX 8 GB
Lowest power draw
CMP 40HX 8 GB
37% lower rating than PRO W7900 48 GB
Cheapest
Cannot compare
Price unavailable for some GPUs
Best value for money
Cannot compare
Price or benchmark unavailable for some GPUs
GPU comparison
Key specifications for Blender rendering.
| Spec | CMP 40HX 8 GB | PRO W7900 48 GB |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest price | Price unavailable No current offer matches your preferences. | Price unavailable No current offer matches your preferences. |
| Value for money | N/A | N/A |
| Blender benchmark score | 1,170.87 | 3,618.68 +209% |
| VRAM | 8 GB Meets Blender’s recommended VRAM | 48 GB More capacity for heavy scenes+500% |
| System PSU | 450 W Secondary source suggestion−25% | 600 W Secondary source suggestion |
| Render support | CUDA, OpenCL | OpenCL |
| Performance | ||
| CUDA cores | 2,304 | N/A |
| Boost clock | 1650 MHz | 2495 MHz +51% |
| RT cores | 36 | 96 +167% |
| Tensor cores | 288 | N/A |
| Memory | ||
| Memory bandwidth | 448 GB/s | 864 GB/s +93% |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory bus | 256-bit | 384-bit +50% |
| Platform | ||
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| TDP | 185 W −37% | 295 W |
| Release year | 2021 | 2023 |
Blender Cycles benchmarks
Estimated seconds / frame Lower is faster
CMP 40HX 8 GB
Blender 4.4.0 · OptiX · 5 runs
PRO W7900 48 GB
Blender 3.6.0 · HIP · 5 runs
Junkshop
Monster
Classroom
Which GPU should you choose for Blender?
PRO W7900 48 GB is the stronger Blender rendering pick here based on benchmark score.
Cycles rendering performance
PRO W7900 48 GB leads by 209.1% in the Renderjuice Blender benchmark model (3,619 vs 1,171). For render-time-first decisions, that is the card to prioritize.
VRAM and scene capacity
PRO W7900 48 GB has more scene headroom with 48 GB of VRAM versus 8 GB on CMP 40HX 8 GB. That matters most for large environments, dense geometry, high-resolution textures, and less optimized production files.
Power ratings and cooling
CMP 40HX 8 GB is the lower-power option at 185 W TDP, compared with 295 W for PRO W7900 48 GB. If render speed is close, that can make CMP 40HX 8 GB easier to cool and run quietly.
Is the upgrade worthwhile?
PRO W7900 48 GB is both the newer and faster Blender rendering choice here. The main reason to choose CMP 40HX 8 GB would be price, availability, existing ownership, or a specific workstation requirement.
Comparison summary
PRO W7900 48 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 209.1%.
Fastest in Cycles: PRO W7900 48 GB 209% faster than CMP 40HX 8 GB.
Most VRAM: PRO W7900 48 GB 500% more VRAM than CMP 40HX 8 GB.
Lowest power draw: CMP 40HX 8 GB 37% lower rating than PRO W7900 48 GB.
Cheapest: Cannot compare Price unavailable for some GPUs.
Best value for money: Cannot compare Price or benchmark unavailable for some GPUs.
CMP 40HX 8 GB has 8 GB of VRAM, while PRO W7900 48 GB has 48 GB, which matters when scenes, textures, or geometry get heavier.
If you are deciding between these cards for Blender, focus first on Blender benchmark score, VRAM capacity, memory bandwidth, and whether your scenes are likely to benefit more from raw speed or extra memory headroom. The comparison table above keeps those tradeoffs in one place.