AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and AMD Radeon R7 240 are two end-of-life entry-level graphics cards that occupy a similar performance tier but achieve it through fundamentally different designs. The data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage for the NVIDIA part, which wins the only shared benchmark by a substantial margin. The R7 240 is a low-power desktop card, while the 940M is a mobile module, so their practical applications differ as much as their raw scores.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give the NVIDIA GeForce 940M a decisive win in the only direct comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 940M scores 6,018 points against the R7 240’s 5,063 points, a difference of 18.9%. This is the single head-to-head data point, and it favors NVIDIA across the board. The 940M’s average benchmark score of 5,284 also edges out the R7 240’s 5,063, reinforcing that the NVIDIA part is the stronger compute performer in this pairing.

Where the R7 240 could be considered to "win" is not in performance but in its physical form factor and power requirements. It is a single-slot, 168 mm (6.6 inches) long desktop card with a 30 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 200 W. The 940M, in contrast, is an MXM Module with a 75 W TDP and no specified power supply recommendation. For a builder assembling a low-power, compact desktop system, the R7 240 is the more practical choice. The 940M, by its nature as a mobile module, is intended for laptops and has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it has no fixed desktop output configuration. The R7 240 provides standard 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs, making it immediately usable in a desktop. So, the R7 240 wins on integration ease and power efficiency, while the 940M wins on raw performance.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. However, it has significantly fewer resources: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M / mm². The transistor counts show the NVIDIA chip is far more complex, with nearly double the transistors of the AMD part.

The compute resources differ substantially. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 is configured with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This explains the large delta in fill rates: the 940M achieves a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s, versus the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. Clock speeds also differ, with the 940M running at a 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost, while the R7 240 operates at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The memory configuration is another key split: both use 2 GB of DDR3, but the 940M has a 64-bit bus delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus providing 28.80 GB/s. The AMD card has double the memory bandwidth, yet still loses in compute benchmarks due to its weaker core.

API support shows a minor difference. The 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. While the AMD card has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, the NVIDIA card supports a newer Vulkan version. Both are end-of-life products, with the 940M released in March 2015 and the R7 240 in October 2013.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5,284, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 240’s average of 5,063.

Q: What is the performance difference in the shared OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6,018 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063 points. This gives the 940M an 18.9% lead.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, thanks to its 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has a 64-bit bus and delivers only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a lower power consumption rating?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, which is much lower than the NVIDIA GeForce 940M’s 75 W TDP.

Q: Are these cards compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is an MXM Module with a 3.0 bus interface, designed for portable devices. The AMD Radeon R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card using a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface with standard DVI, HDMI, and VGA outputs.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M’s GM107 chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R7 240’s Oland chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category except process node, memory type, and memory size.

• Chip: NVIDIA GM107 vs. AMD Oland
• Architecture: Maxwell vs. GCN 1.0
• Transistors: 1,870 million vs. 950 million
• Die Size: 148 mm² vs. 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² vs. 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1020 MHz vs. 730 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1098 MHz vs. 780 MHz
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs. 320
• TMUs: 32 vs. 20
• ROPs: 16 vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 17.57 GPixel/s vs. 6.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 35.14 GTexel/s vs. 15.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 1,124.4 GFLOPS vs. 499.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs. 30 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs. Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: None vs. 200 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs. PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs. 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.2.170
• Dimensions: Not specified vs. 168 mm (6.6 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height
• Release Date: March 2015 vs. October 2013
• Launch MSRP: None vs. 69 USD

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one direct benchmark comparison in the data, but it tells a clear story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6,018, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. The 940M wins with an 18.9% delta. This is a substantial margin that reflects the underlying hardware differences. The 940M has 512 shading units and a boost clock of 1098 MHz, resulting in 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The R7 240 has only 320 shading units and a 780 MHz boost clock, giving it 499.2 GFLOPS. That is less than half the theoretical compute throughput.

The R7 240’s only potential counterargument is its higher memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s versus the 940M’s 14.40 GB/s. However, this does not translate into a benchmark win, as the core compute deficit is too large. The 940M’s advantage in pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s vs. 6.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (35.14 GTexel/s vs. 15.60 GTexel/s) further solidifies its dominance in the OpenCL test, which is heavily influenced by shader and fill-rate performance.

Beyond the direct comparison, the percentile rankings reinforce the gap. The 940M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 240 sits in the 30th. The 940M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 980M (avg score 5,308, delta -0.4%) and GeForce GTX 760M (avg score 5,236, delta 0.9%), showing it is competitive with higher-tier mobile parts. The R7 240’s nearest rivals are the Radeon R7 M340 (avg score 5,063, delta 0%) and Radeon R7 Graphics (avg score 4,998, delta 1.3%), showing it is aligned with integrated-class performance. The 940M’s average score of 5,284 puts it ahead of the R7 240’s 5,063 by roughly 4.4%, even when comparing their overall averages rather than the single head-to-head test.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the faster GPU by every compute metric tested. It delivers 18.9% higher OpenCL performance, has more than double the FP32 throughput (1,124.4 GFLOPS vs. 499.2 GFLOPS), and offers superior pixel and texture rates. For any task that relies on raw shader compute, the 940M is the stronger choice.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 does have its own advantages, but they are not in performance. Its 30 W TDP makes it a much more efficient card, and its single-slot, 168 mm desktop form factor with standard display outputs makes it a drop-in solution for compact builds. It also has double the memory bandwidth, which could theoretically help in memory-bound scenarios, though no benchmark in the data confirms this. The R7 240’s launch MSRP was 69 USD, making it a low-cost entry point at its time of release.

If the choice is purely about benchmark scores, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins. If the choice is about building a low-power desktop system where the card must fit in a small case and use standard connectors, the R7 240 is the only one of the two that can actually be installed in a desktop, as the 940M is an MXM module for portable devices. The 940M is the performance pick; the R7 240 is the practical desktop pick.