AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a clear, decisive margin. The GeForce 940M scores 6,018 points against 4,929 for the Radeon R7 M265, a 22.1% advantage. That is not a marginal win; it is a commanding lead in raw compute throughput that will translate directly into faster GPGPU workloads and better sustained performance in any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration.

Looking at the broader performance context, the GeForce 940M’s average benchmark score of 5,284 places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon R7 M265, with an average score of 4,929, sits at the 29th percentile. While both are entry-level mobile parts, the GeForce 940M’s percentile ranking is two points higher, and its absolute score advantage of 355 points represents a meaningful gap in real-world compute capability.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The GeForce 940M sits within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (which scores 5,236) and within 0.7% of the GeForce 840M (5,322). It is actually 0.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308) in this particular aggregate metric, which is a surprising result for a lower-tier part. The Radeon R7 M265, by contrast, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904, 0.5% delta). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893) by 0.7%, but those are all older or similarly positioned parts.

The head-to-head winner is unambiguous: the GeForce 940M takes the lone benchmark victory, and the Radeon R7 M265 has no countervailing win in any shared test. The 22.1% delta in OpenCL is the single data point that defines this matchup, and it favors NVIDIA by a wide margin.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The GeForce 940M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, while the Radeon R7 M265 is based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts reveal a substantial difference in complexity. The GeForce 940M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R7 M265 is a much smaller chip, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has nearly double the transistor budget, which allows for significantly more compute resources.

Clock speeds also favor the GeForce 940M. NVIDIA runs the 940M at a base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost up to 1098 MHz. AMD’s R7 M265 operates at a substantially lower 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. This clock advantage compounds the transistor advantage, giving the GeForce 940M a massive throughput lead.

The compute unit configurations are starkly different. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. In terms of fill rates, the GeForce 940M delivers 17.57 gigapixels per second and 35.14 gigatexels per second, while the R7 M265 manages only 6.60 gigapixels per second and 19.80 gigatexels per second. The pixel rate gap is especially large — NVIDIA’s part is more than 2.6 times faster in that metric.

Raw compute throughput follows the same pattern. The GeForce 940M achieves 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R7 M265 reaches 633.6 GFLOPS. That is a 77% advantage for NVIDIA in theoretical peak compute.

Memory configurations are a mixed bag. Both cards use 2 GB of DDR3 memory, and both run at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate. However, the Radeon R7 M265 uses a 128-bit memory bus, giving it 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GeForce 940M is limited to a 64-bit bus and only 14.40 GB/s. AMD’s wider bus halves the bandwidth deficit, but the GeForce 940M’s superior compute resources more than compensate in the benchmark results.

The interface differs as well. The GeForce 940M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface in an MXM Module form factor, while the Radeon R7 M265 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card is rated at 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors; AMD does not list a TDP for the R7 M265.

API support shows a slight edge for NVIDIA in newer standards. The GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are DirectX 12 capable, but the NVIDIA part’s Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than AMD’s Vulkan 1.2.170.

# Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the GeForce 940M wins in every measurable compute category. The OpenCL benchmark is the only direct comparison available, and it goes to NVIDIA by 22.1%. The architecture analysis supports that result comprehensively.

The GeForce 940M is the clear choice for any workload that depends on raw shading throughput. Its 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, combined with much higher clock speeds, make it suitable for compute-heavy tasks like video encoding acceleration, image processing, and physics simulations. The 1,124.4 GFLOPS FP32 rating is nearly double that of the R7 M265, so any floating-point-intensive application will favor the NVIDIA part strongly.

The Radeon R7 M265 does have one advantage: memory bandwidth. With a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s, it offers exactly double the bandwidth of the GeForce 940M’s 14.40 GB/s. In memory-bound scenarios where the compute units are waiting on data rather than performing calculations, the AMD card could theoretically close some of the gap. However, the benchmark data shows that this bandwidth advantage does not translate into a compute win — the OpenCL score still favors NVIDIA by 22.1%.

The R7 M265 also has a slight edge in DirectX feature level, supporting 11_1 versus the 940M’s 11_0, though both are DirectX 12 compatible. This is a minor specification difference with limited practical impact in the context of the performance gap.

For gaming at typical laptop resolutions, the GeForce 940M’s higher pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s vs 6.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (35.14 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) make it the faster part for rasterization-heavy workloads. The R7 M265’s lower fill rates will bottleneck in scenarios with high resolution or heavy texture detail.

The Radeon R7 M265’s smaller die size (77 mm² vs 148 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 1,870 million) suggest it may draw less power, though AMD does not list a TDP for the card. This could make it a better fit for thin-and-light laptops where thermal constraints are tight, but the NVIDIA card’s 75 W TDP is already modest for a discrete GPU.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the better GPU in this matchup. It wins the only shared benchmark by 22.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (5,284 vs 4,929), sits at a higher percentile (31st vs 29th), and dominates in every architectural metric that matters for performance — shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clock speed, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute.

Buyers who need a laptop GPU for compute workloads, moderate gaming, or general acceleration should choose the GeForce 940M without hesitation. Its 512 shading units and 1,124.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput are simply in a different class from the R7 M265’s 384 units and 633.6 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also benefits from newer Vulkan support (1.4 vs 1.2.170), which matters for forward compatibility with modern applications.

The Radeon R7 M265 does have a memory bandwidth advantage — 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s — which could matter in specific memory-bound use cases. But the benchmark evidence shows that this advantage does not overcome the GeForce 940M’s compute superiority in practical workloads. The R7 M265’s smaller die and lower transistor count suggest it might be more power-efficient, but without a listed TDP, that remains speculative.

For anyone choosing between these two in a used or budget laptop market, the GeForce 940M is the pick. Its average score of 5,284 puts it within 0.4% of the GeForce GTX 980M, a much higher-tier part, which is a remarkable result for an entry-level mobile GPU. The R7 M265, at 4,929, is essentially tied with the R7 M360 and FirePro W5130M, placing it in a lower performance tier entirely.

The verdict is straightforward: NVIDIA wins this generation, and it wins by a wide margin.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6,018 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929. This gives the GeForce 940M a 22.1% advantage in the only shared benchmark test.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has higher memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, thanks to a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The GeForce 940M runs at a base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost of 1098 MHz. The Radeon R7 M265 runs at a base clock of 725 MHz with a boost of 825 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has better FP32 compute performance?

A: The GeForce 940M achieves 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 633.6 GFLOPS for the Radeon R7 M265.

Q: How does the GeForce 940M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5,284, which is 0.4% higher than the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308) and 0.9% higher than the GeForce GTX 760M (5,236). The Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929, which is 0.5% higher than the FirePro W5130M (4,904).