AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a split decision between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX posts a score of 4939, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. That gives the NVIDIA part an 8.2% advantage in this compute-oriented API test. The 940MX, despite its older Maxwell architecture and 28 nm process, delivers a meaningful lead here, one that aligns with its higher raw shading throughput.

The situation flips dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353, against 4749 for the GeForce 940MX. That is a 33.8% lead for the AMD chip, a substantial margin that reflects the modern RDNA 2.0 architecture's strength under a contemporary graphics API. Vulkan is the API that matters for many current games and applications, and the 610M's advantage here is not marginal; it is a decisive win.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon 610M sits at 5444, which is 12.4% higher than the GeForce 940MX's average of 4844. This aggregate figure suggests that, on balance, the Radeon 610M is the faster part across the recorded tests, with the Vulkan result pulling its average well above the NVIDIA chip's. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Radeon 610M lands in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce 940MX sits in the 28th percentile. That four-percentile gap indicates the AMD part is positioned slightly higher within the overall performance distribution.

The nearest rival data for each card provides additional context. The Radeon 610M's average score of 5444 puts it within 1% of several comparable parts: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467, just 0.4% higher; the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5416, 0.5% lower; the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483, 0.7% higher; and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501, 1% higher. The 610M is effectively trading blows with that group, none of which separate themselves by more than a point or two. For the 940MX, its 4844 average is similarly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, 0.2% higher; the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867, 0.5% higher; the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, 1% higher; and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB scores 4791, 1.1% lower. That last entry is an outlier in name only, the RTX 3080 12 GB's low recorded score here likely reflects a specific test condition, but the delta is what the database shows.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940MX wins the OpenCL compute test. With a 4939 score against 4535, it is 8.2% ahead of the Radeon 610M in this workload. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose GPU compute, media encoding, and some productivity tasks, so the NVIDIA card holds an edge in those scenarios. Its 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units provide more parallel hardware, and the 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance outpaces the Radeon 610M's 486.4 GFLOPS. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the 940MX is the safer pick based on the recorded data.

The Radeon 610M wins the Vulkan test by a wide margin. Its 6353 score versus 4749 represents a 33.8% lead, which is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison. Vulkan is the API used by many modern game engines, emulators, and recent AAA titles, so this win carries significant weight for gaming-oriented workloads. The 610M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and hardware ray tracing cores gives it a feature set that the Maxwell-based 940MX simply cannot match. For anyone planning to run recent Vulkan-based games, the Radeon 610M is clearly the stronger option.

The split is clean: the 940MX for OpenCL compute, the 610M for Vulkan graphics. The average benchmark score favors the AMD part overall, so the 610M is the more balanced performer. The 940MX's OpenCL win is real but narrow, while the 610M's Vulkan win is overwhelming. In practical terms, the API you use most will determine which card feels faster.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, and it explains the benchmark results. The AMD Radeon 610M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with the Mendocino chip. The die size is 100 mm². It features 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, 4 render output units, and 2 ray tracing cores. The FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 972.8 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost clock of 1900 MHz. Memory is system shared, meaning the bandwidth is system dependent. The TDP is 15 W, and it connects via PCIe 4.0 x8. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate at feature level 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with the GM107 chip. The die size is 148 mm², larger than the AMD chip, with 1,870 million transistors and a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. It has no ray tracing cores. The FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS, and there is no recorded FP16 support. The base clock is 795 MHz with a boost clock of 861 MHz. Memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The TDP is 23 W, and it connects via PCIe 3.0 x8. It supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The process node difference is the headline: 6 nm versus 28 nm. That is a massive generational leap in manufacturing, allowing the AMD chip to run at much higher clocks with lower power consumption. The Radeon 610M boosts to 1900 MHz, more than double the 940MX's 861 MHz boost. The Maxwell chip compensates with far more shading units, 512 versus 128, and more TMUs, 32 versus 8, which explains its FP32 advantage. The 940MX also has dedicated GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 610M relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part has hardware ray tracing cores, which the NVIDIA chip lacks entirely. The API support also differs: the 610M reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the 940MX only reaches DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5444, which is 12.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX's average of 4844.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353 versus 4749 for the GeForce 940MX, a 33.8% lead for the AMD part.

Q: Does the GeForce 940MX win any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test the GeForce 940MX scores 4939 against 4535 for the Radeon 610M, an 8.2% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The AMD chip consumes less power.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate at feature level 12_2. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 610M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 6 nm for the AMD Radeon 610M versus 28 nm for the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The AMD chip, Mendocino, has a die size of 100 mm², while the NVIDIA GM107 has a die size of 148 mm². The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors, a figure not recorded for the 610M. Transistor density is 12.6 million per mm² for the 940MX, with no recorded value for the 610M.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the 610M runs at a base of 1500 MHz and boosts to 1900 MHz, while the 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. Memory configurations are entirely different: the 610M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the 940MX is 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed.

The compute resources favor the NVIDIA card in raw count: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, versus 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs for the AMD card. The 610M has 2 ray tracing cores, while the 940MX has none. FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS for the 940MX and 486.4 GFLOPS for the 610M. The 610M has FP16 performance of 972.8 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the 940MX has no recorded FP16 value. Pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s for the 610M and 6.888 GPixel/s for the 940MX. Texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s for the 610M and 27.55 GTexel/s for the 940MX.

TDP is 15 W for the AMD chip and 23 W for the NVIDIA chip. The slot width is IGP for the 610M and MXM Module for the 940MX. Neither requires power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the AMD part and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the NVIDIA part. Both have portable device dependent display outputs. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the AMD part and 12 (11_0) for the NVIDIA part. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are 2022-09-19 for the 610M and 2016-06-27 for the 940MX. The 610M's predecessor is Vega II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP. The 940MX's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation based on workload. If the priority is Vulkan-based gaming or modern graphics APIs, the AMD Radeon 610M is the superior choice. Its 33.8% advantage in the Vulkan test is too large to ignore, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support with ray tracing cores gives it a feature set that the Maxwell-based 940MX lacks. The higher average benchmark score of 5444 versus 4844, combined with the 32nd versus 28th percentile ranking, confirms that the 610M is the faster overall part in the recorded measurements.

If the priority is OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX holds a modest 8.2% lead. Its 512 shading units and dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for that specific workload. The 940MX also consumes more power at 23 W versus 15 W, but for users running OpenCL-heavy applications, that extra power buys a measurable performance advantage.

For most users, the AMD Radeon 610M is the better buy from a pure performance standpoint. The Vulkan win is decisive, the average score is higher, and the modern architecture brings features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate that the 940MX cannot offer. The 940MX remains relevant only for those who specifically need OpenCL compute performance and can accept its older architecture, higher power draw, and lower overall benchmark standing. The nearest rival data reinforces the gap: the 610M sits among parts like the Quadro M4000 and GTX 765M, while the 940MX sits among older parts like the GTX 560M and GTS 450. The Radeon 610M is the more capable part in the aggregate, and the benchmark results support that conclusion.