AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and the AMD Radeon R5 M230, and the result is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 940MX scores 4939 against the R5 M230's 4577, a 7.9% advantage. That is a meaningful gap for two mobile GPUs that occupy adjacent performance percentiles. The 940MX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M230 trails at the 27th percentile — the score delta moves the 940MX just ahead in the overall distribution.

Context from the nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The 940MX's average benchmark score of 4844 places it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, -0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, -0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, -1%). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, +1.1% delta for the 940MX) — an oddity that reflects the RTX 3080's low OpenCL showing in this dataset rather than any real-world equivalence. The R5 M230's average of 4577 places it near the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, +0.2% for the R5 M230), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, +0.4%), and slightly behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, -0.9%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, -1.1%).

The 7.9% OpenCL win for the 940MX is consistent with its hardware advantages. Since OpenCL is compute-heavy, the 940MX's higher FP32 throughput — 881.7 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS — directly translates into a measurable lead in this workload. The R5 M230 has no countervailing benchmark win in this dataset; the head-to-head record is 1 win for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die — a density of 12.3M per mm². The 940MX's die is more than 2.6 times larger, giving it substantially more silicon for compute resources.

The core configurations differ accordingly. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. That translates to a significant raw throughput advantage for the NVIDIA part: the 940MX reaches 27.55 GTexel/s and 6.888 GPixel/s, while the R5 M230 manages 12.20 GTexel/s and 4.880 GPixel/s. In FP32 compute, the gap is even starker — 881.7 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS, a 2.3x difference.

Memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The 940MX pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230 also has 2 GB but uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on the same 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth. This memory type difference is critical for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. The 940MX has a defined base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 861 MHz. The R5 M230's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data, which suggests it may run at fixed or dynamically managed clocks typical of integrated-style parts. The R5 M230's form factor is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor), whereas the 940MX is an MXM module — a discrete, replaceable card. Power draw reflects this: the 940MX has a 23 W TDP, while the R5 M230's TDP is not provided.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the 940MX at 11_0 feature level versus the R5 M230 at 11_1. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M230 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 940MX has no power connectors, consistent with its low-power MXM design.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins with a score of 4939 against the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4577, a 7.9% margin.

Q: How do the two compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS, which is more than double the R5 M230's 390.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What memory types do these GPUs use, and does it matter?

A: The 940MX uses GDDR5 with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M230 uses DDR3 with 16.00 GB/s. The GDDR5 memory provides substantially higher bandwidth, which benefits texture-heavy and memory-bound workloads.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the R5 M230 beats the 940MX?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the 940MX wins outright. The win count is 1 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The 940MX is at the 28th percentile, while the R5 M230 is at the 27th percentile — both are in the lower quartile of overall GPU performance.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process.

# The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the clear winner in this comparison. Every measurable metric favors it: the OpenCL score (4939 vs 4577), the FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS), the texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs 12.20 GTexel/s), and the memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s). The 7.9% benchmark delta is real, but the underlying hardware differences suggest the gap could widen in workloads that stress memory bandwidth or compute — neither of which the R5 M230 can match.

The R5 M230's only saving grace is its IGP form factor, which may suit ultra-thin or low-cost designs where a discrete MXM module is not an option. But from a pure performance standpoint, the data offers no reason to prefer it. The 940MX also has a higher percentile ranking (28th vs 27th) and a higher average benchmark score (4844 vs 4577), reinforcing its position as the stronger part.

Release timing favors the NVIDIA part as well: the 940MX launched on 2016-06-27, while the R5 M230 launched on 2014-01-06. That two-year gap explains the architectural and memory improvements. The 940MX's successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile series, while the R5 M230's successor is Polaris Mobile — but neither successor is relevant to this head-to-head.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | AMD Radeon R5 M230 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM107 | Jet |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 795 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 861 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz / 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.888 GPixel/s | 4.880 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 27.55 GTexel/s | 12.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 881.7 GFLOPS | 390.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 23 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-06-27 | 2014-01-06 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Polaris Mobile |

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins in every category where data exists. In compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, it leads by 7.9%. In raw FP32 performance, it delivers 2.3x the throughput. In texture fill, it offers more than double the rate. In memory bandwidth, it provides 2.5x the headroom. These are not marginal differences — they represent a generational leap in capability.

The 940MX is the pick for anyone running GPU-accelerated applications, even light gaming or content creation, where the combination of GDDR5 memory and Maxwell's compute efficiency will show tangible benefits. Its 23 W TDP means it can fit in thin-and-light laptops without active cooling or large heatsinks.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its IGP form factor is its only distinguishing feature — it may be the only option in systems where a discrete MXM module is physically impossible. But the data shows it trails in every measured aspect, from compute to memory to texture throughput. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support is lower than the 940MX's 1.4, and its DirectX 12 feature level (11_1) is slightly higher than the 940MX's (11_0), though this is unlikely to matter in practice.

For users choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward: the 940MX is the superior part by every metric in the dataset. The R5 M230 is only relevant in systems that cannot accommodate a discrete GPU. The performance gap is not close, and the architecture differences reinforce rather than mitigate that conclusion.