AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and AMD Radeon R5 M230 are both mobile graphics solutions from the same era, aimed at thin-and-light laptops and entry-level multimedia systems. Both were manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but their internal designs and resulting performance differ significantly. The database places the GeForce 940M in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M230 sits in the 27th percentile. This page breaks down the recorded benchmark data, architectural choices, and practical differences between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct synthetic comparison between these two parts: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points. That translates to a 31.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin for any GPU comparison. The GeForce 940M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, giving it a 1-0 record in the database.

Looking at the wider context, the GeForce 940M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5284. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (average score 5308, which is 0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0.6% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, 0.7% higher). It also sits just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5236, putting the 940M 0.9% ahead of that older part. These small deltas show that the 940M is positioned in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs from its generation, where a few points either way separate the models.

The Radeon R5 M230, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4577, identical to its single OpenCL result since no other tests are recorded for it. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 (average score 4569, which is 0.2% lower), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, 0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, 0.9% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 1.1% higher). The R5 M230 is therefore grouped with a strange mix of integrated graphics and much more powerful discrete parts, but the actual scores are all within a narrow band. The 31.5% gap between the 940M and the R5 M230 is far larger than any of these intra-cluster differences, making it clear that the NVIDIA part is the stronger performer in raw compute.

The data also reveals a notable asymmetry: the GeForce 940M has two recorded benchmark results, with its OpenCL score of 6018 and a Vulkan score of 4549. The Radeon R5 M230 only has the OpenCL result. This means the 940M’s average is pulled down by its Vulkan figure, yet it still lands more than 15% above the R5 M230’s average. In practical terms, the 940M delivers roughly a third more compute throughput in the OpenCL workload, which is a meaningful difference for any GPU-accelerated application that scales well with raw shader output.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip, based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the transistor budgets diverge sharply.

The 940M packs 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The R5 M230 has only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm². The density figures are nearly identical, which is expected given the same process node, but the 940M’s die is roughly 2.6 times larger in area and carries nearly 2.7 times more transistors. That extra silicon translates directly into more execution resources: the 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part, though the database lists no base or boost clocks for the AMD chip. The 940M runs at a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1098 MHz. The R5 M230’s core clocks are not recorded, but its memory clock is 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective transfer, while the 940M’s memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The R5 M230 actually has a slightly higher memory clock, which contributes to its bandwidth advantage, but the core resource gap is too large to overcome.

Memory configuration is similar on paper: both have 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. However, the bandwidth numbers differ. The R5 M230 achieves 16.00 GB/s, while the 940M manages 14.40 GB/s. That means the AMD part has about 11% more memory bandwidth, a rare metric where it leads. The 940M counters with far higher pixel and texture throughput: its pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s for the R5 M230, and its texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. In floating-point compute, the 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly three times the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS.

API support is broadly similar, with both parts supporting DirectX 12, though the 940M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) while the R5 M230 lists DirectX 12 (11_1). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M230 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, an older revision. The R5 M230 is an integrated graphics part (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the 940M is a discrete MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors. The 940M carries a 75 W TDP, while no TDP is recorded for the R5 M230.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 4577 for the AMD Radeon R5 M230. That is a 31.5% higher score.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. The R5 M230 has higher bandwidth at 16.00 GB/s, while the 940M has 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, while the Radeon R5 M230 has 320 shading units. The 940M also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the AMD part.

Q: Are the manufacturing processes the same?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The 940M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GeForce 940M has a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s, which is much higher than the Radeon R5 M230’s 4.880 GPixel/s. The texture rate is also higher on the 940M at 35.14 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 was released on 2014-01-06, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M was released on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and the AMD Radeon R5 M230:

• Chip: GM107 (NVIDIA) versus Jet (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell (NVIDIA) versus GCN 1.0 (AMD)
• Generation: GeForce 900M (NVIDIA) versus Gem System, R5 M200 (AMD)
• Transistors: 1,870 million (NVIDIA) versus 690 million (AMD)
• Die Size: 148 mm² (NVIDIA) versus 56 mm² (AMD)
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² (NVIDIA) versus 12.3M / mm² (AMD)
• Base Clock: 1020 MHz (NVIDIA) versus not recorded (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 1098 MHz (NVIDIA) versus not recorded (AMD)
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective (NVIDIA) versus 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s (NVIDIA) versus 16.00 GB/s (AMD)
• Shading Units: 512 (NVIDIA) versus 320 (AMD)
• TMUs: 32 (NVIDIA) versus 20 (AMD)
• ROPs: 16 (NVIDIA) versus 8 (AMD)
• Pixel Rate: 17.57 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) versus 4.880 GPixel/s (AMD)
• Texture Rate: 35.14 GTexel/s (NVIDIA) versus 12.20 GTexel/s (AMD)
• FP32 Performance: 1,124.4 GFLOPS (NVIDIA) versus 390.4 GFLOPS (AMD)
• TDP: 75 W (NVIDIA) versus not recorded (AMD)
• Slot Width: MXM Module (NVIDIA) versus IGP (AMD)
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) (NVIDIA) versus PCIe 3.0 x8 (AMD)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 (NVIDIA) versus 1.2.170 (AMD)
• Release Date: 2015-03-12 (NVIDIA) versus 2014-01-06 (AMD)
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M (NVIDIA) versus Solar System (AMD)
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile (NVIDIA) versus Polaris Mobile (AMD)

Fields that are identical include the process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (2 GB), memory type (DDR3), bus width (64 bit), DirectX support (12, with different feature levels), OpenGL support (4.6), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and production status (End-of-life). Neither GPU has recorded RT cores, tensor cores, FP16 performance, or a launch MSRP. The R5 M230 also lacks recorded power connector data, while the 940M explicitly has none.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940M wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 31.5% higher score. It also leads in every compute and rendering throughput metric: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 GFLOPS. Its transistor count and die size are much larger, giving it more raw hardware to work with. For any workload that depends on shader throughput, pixel fill, or general GPU compute, the 940M is the clear choice. It also has newer Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which may matter for compatibility with recent applications.

The Radeon R5 M230 wins in memory bandwidth, with 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the 940M. That is a narrow advantage, roughly 11%, and it stems from the higher memory clock (1000 MHz versus 900 MHz). In scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, such as certain texture-heavy workloads at low resolutions, the AMD part could close the gap slightly, but the 940M’s much higher texture rate (35.14 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s) likely overrides that benefit in most real-world usage. The R5 M230 also has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)), a minor edge in API compliance. Its integrated design, using an IGP slot width and PCIe 3.0 x8, may make it easier to implement in compact systems without a discrete MXM slot.

In terms of the database’s percentile ranking, the 940M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, four points above the R5 M230’s 27th percentile. The nearest rival comparisons reinforce this ordering: the 940M trades blows with parts like the GTX 980M and GTX 760M, all within a 1% band, while the R5 M230 sits alongside integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics P530. That places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite their similar memory configurations and release proximity.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the stronger GPU by a wide margin in the recorded benchmarks and in nearly every architectural specification. Its 31.5% lead in OpenCL performance, combined with roughly three times the FP32 throughput and more than triple the pixel rate, makes it the better choice for any user who needs GPU acceleration for games, media encoding, or compute tasks. The 940M’s nearest rivals are other mid-range NVIDIA mobile parts like the GTX 980M and GTX 760M, all within a fraction of a percent, which shows it competes in a more capable tier than the R5 M230.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is not without merits. Its higher memory bandwidth and integrated form factor make it suitable for basic display output and light acceleration in low-power laptops. It also has a slightly newer DirectX feature level. However, its 27th percentile ranking and its placement alongside integrated graphics in the nearest rival list indicate that it targets a lower performance class. Users who already own a system with the R5 M230 can expect acceptable behavior for everyday tasks, but the 940M is the part to pick when performance matters. Anyone choosing between these two from the database’s perspective should favor the GeForce 940M, as it wins the only direct comparison and dominates the specification sheet where it counts.