AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and AMD Radeon R7 M260X split their two head-to-head benchmark results exactly one win apiece, but the margin of victory tells very different stories. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 940M posts a score of 6018 against the Radeon R7 M260X's 5690, a 5.8% advantage. That is a decisive lead in compute throughput, reflecting the NVIDIA part's higher shader count and clock speeds. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, however, the AMD card edges ahead with 4631 versus 4549, a 1.8% margin. This is a much narrower win, suggesting the Radeon's advantage in graphics API workloads is real but modest.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the 940M's average benchmark score of 5284 places it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308) and 0.6% behind the GeForce 930A (5317), while it sits 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 760M (5236). The Radeon R7 M260X's average score of 5161 puts it 0.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M (5154), 1.9% ahead of the Radeon R7 240 (5063), but 1.4% behind the GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and 1.0% behind the Quadro 4000M (5211). The 940M holds a 2.4% average-score advantage over the R7 M260X in aggregate, which aligns with the OpenCL result being more substantial than the Vulkan reversal.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture: the GeForce 940M sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M260X sits at the 30th. That one-percentile gap is small in absolute terms, but it confirms the NVIDIA part's slight overall edge in the database's scoring model. Notably, the 940M's nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts, whereas the R7 M260X's closest competitors include two Quadro professional cards, suggesting the AMD chip competes in a slightly different performance neighborhood.

# The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the stronger overall performer. Its 5.8% OpenCL win is nearly three times larger than the Radeon R7 M260X's 1.8% Vulkan victory, and its average benchmark score of 5284 versus 5161 gives it a clear aggregate advantage. The 940M also delivers higher pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s versus 5.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (35.14 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), making it the better choice for resolution-heavy or texture-bound workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS more than doubles the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS, which explains the OpenCL margin.

However, the Radeon R7 M260X is not without merit. Its Vulkan win indicates better graphics-API efficiency, and its GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the 940M's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at just 14.40 GB/s. That 4.4x bandwidth advantage is significant for memory-intensive scenes and may explain the Vulkan result. The AMD card also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the 940M's DirectX 12 (11_0), a minor feature-level difference.

For users prioritizing compute performance, OpenCL workloads, or raw pixel throughput, the GeForce 940M is the data-backed pick. For those who value memory bandwidth, Vulkan performance, or a slightly higher DirectX feature level, the Radeon R7 M260X justifies consideration. But the overall benchmark average favors NVIDIA, and the margin in the largest single test is decisive.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA die is nearly twice the size, which explains its higher transistor count and greater compute resources.

Core configurations differ substantially. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Radeon R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That NVIDIA advantage in every unit category translates directly to its higher pixel and texture rates. Clock speeds compound the difference: the 940M runs at a 1020 MHz base with a 1098 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X runs at a 620 MHz base with a 715 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip's clocks are roughly 60% higher at base and 54% higher at boost, and combined with more units, this drives its FP32 output to 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is where AMD fights back. The R7 M260X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), delivering only 14.40 GB/s. AMD's bandwidth advantage is enormous, but NVIDIA counters with double the memory capacity. The bus interfaces also differ: the 940M uses MXM-B (3.0) as a removable module, while the R7 M260X connects via PCIe 3.0 x8.

Both chips support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon's DirectX 12 feature level is 11_1 versus NVIDIA's 11_0. Vulkan support also differs: the 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M260X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The 940M is rated at 75 W TDP with no power connectors, while the R7 M260X's TDP is not specified. Both are marked as end-of-life and depend on portable device display outputs.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher overall benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5284, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5161, giving NVIDIA a 2.4% aggregate advantage.

Q: How do they compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce 940M scores 6018 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the R7 M260X's 5690, a 5.8% margin in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Radeon R7 M260X wins Geekbench Vulkan with 4631 against the 940M's 4549, a 1.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The R7 M260X has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the 940M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus — AMD's bandwidth is roughly 4.4 times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and higher clocks?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units with a 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost, while the R7 M260X has 384 shading units at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost.

Q: What is the transistor and die size comparison?

A: The 940M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R7 M260X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die; both use a 28 nm TSMC process.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M dominates in compute-heavy and fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS makes it the clear choice for OpenCL compute tasks, general-purpose GPU workloads, and any application that leverages shading unit count. The 940M's pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s is over three times the R7 M260X's 5.72 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s doubles the AMD part's 17.16 GTexel/s. This makes the NVIDIA card better suited for high-resolution rendering, heavy texture filtering, and rasterization workloads. Its 2 GB of memory also provides more headroom for larger textures or datasets than the R7 M260X's 1024 MB. The 940M's Vulkan 1.4 support also edges out the R7 M260X's Vulkan 1.2.170 for future API compatibility.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor. Its 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth dwarfs the 940M's 14.40 GB/s, making it the better choice for bandwidth-sensitive workloads like high-resolution texture streaming, post-processing effects, or any scene where data movement outweighs compute. The Vulkan benchmark result (4631 vs 4549) suggests AMD's architecture handles graphics-API workloads more efficiently despite lower compute specs. The R7 M260X also supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1 versus the 940M's 11_0, a small but measurable advantage for newer DirectX 12 titles. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while narrower than a full x16 slot, is more standard than the 940M's MXM-B (3.0) module form factor, which may matter in systems with fixed MXM slots.

In practical terms, the 940M is the pick for users who run compute-heavy applications, play games at moderate resolutions without relying on massive texture packs, or need double the VRAM capacity. The R7 M260X suits users whose workloads are memory-bound, who prioritize Vulkan performance, or who value the higher bandwidth for texture-heavy scenes. The data shows a split: NVIDIA wins the compute and rasterization battles decisively, while AMD wins the memory and graphics-API skirmishes narrowly. Given that the 940M's average score is 123 points higher and it wins the larger-margin test, the overall recommendation leans NVIDIA — but the R7 M260X's bandwidth advantage is a legitimate counterweight in specific scenarios.