CMP 40HX vs RX 6950 XT for Blender
Compare CMP 40HX 8 GB and RX 6950 XT 16 GB for Blender Cycles. See benchmark performance, VRAM, power ratings and checked prices side by side. RX 6950 XT 16 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 153.6%.
Fastest in Cycles
RX 6950 XT 16 GB
154% faster than CMP 40HX 8 GB
Most VRAM
RX 6950 XT 16 GB
100% more VRAM than CMP 40HX 8 GB
Lowest power draw
CMP 40HX 8 GB
45% lower rating than RX 6950 XT 16 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 | RX 6950 XT 16 GB |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest price | Price unavailable No current offer matches your preferences. | $1,190.00 Checked Oct 9, 2026 |
| Value for money | N/A | 2.50 |
| Blender benchmark score | 1,170.87 | 2,969.55 +154% |
| VRAM | 8 GB Meets Blender’s recommended VRAM | 16 GB More headroom for complex scenes+100% |
| System PSU | 450 W Secondary source suggestion−47% | 850 W Manufacturer requirement |
| Render support | CUDA, OpenCL | OpenCL |
| Performance | ||
| CUDA cores | 2,304 | N/A |
| Boost clock | 1650 MHz | 2310 MHz +40% |
| RT cores | 36 | 80 +122% |
| Tensor cores | 288 | N/A |
| Memory | ||
| Memory bandwidth | 448 GB/s | 576 GB/s +29% |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory bus | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| Platform | ||
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| TDP | 185 W −45% | 335 W |
| Release year | 2021 | 2022 |
Blender Cycles benchmarks
Estimated seconds / frame Lower is faster
CMP 40HX 8 GB
Blender 4.4.0 · OptiX · 5 runs
RX 6950 XT 16 GB
Blender 5.2.0 · HIP · 5 runs
Junkshop
Monster
Classroom
Which GPU should you choose for Blender?
RX 6950 XT 16 GB is the stronger Blender rendering pick here based on benchmark score.
Cycles rendering performance
RX 6950 XT 16 GB leads by 153.6% in the Renderjuice Blender benchmark model (2,970 vs 1,171). For render-time-first decisions, that is the card to prioritize.
VRAM and scene capacity
RX 6950 XT 16 GB has more scene headroom with 16 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 335 W for RX 6950 XT 16 GB. If render speed is close, that can make CMP 40HX 8 GB easier to cool and run quietly.
Is the upgrade worthwhile?
RX 6950 XT 16 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
RX 6950 XT 16 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 153.6%.
Fastest in Cycles: RX 6950 XT 16 GB 154% faster than CMP 40HX 8 GB.
Most VRAM: RX 6950 XT 16 GB 100% more VRAM than CMP 40HX 8 GB.
Lowest power draw: CMP 40HX 8 GB 45% lower rating than RX 6950 XT 16 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 RX 6950 XT 16 GB has 16 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.