AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural eras, and the benchmark data shows a near-total statistical tie in raw compute performance despite their internal differences. The 940MX edges out a single Geekbench OpenCL victory with a score of 4939 against 4929, a negligible 0.2% margin that places both firmly in the same performance tier, with the R7 M265 sitting at the 29th percentile of all GPUs and the 940MX at the 28th.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX holds the only head-to-head victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4939 compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M265's 4929. This 0.2% delta is effectively a photo finish, meaning there is no meaningful performance advantage for either card in general-purpose compute workloads. The 940MX also demonstrates broader software compatibility by being the only one of the two with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4749, indicating it can execute workloads through both OpenCL and Vulkan APIs, while the R7 M265 only has an OpenCL result recorded.

The R7 M265's closest rival data reveals a different story: it is statistically indistinguishable from the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (deltaPct 0) and only 0.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M, while trailing the 940MX by the same 0.2% margin it loses by. For the 940MX, its nearest rivals show it is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450. In practical terms, neither card wins any meaningful use-case category outright — both are entry-level mobile parts where the 940MX has a slight edge in API flexibility, but the raw OpenCL scores suggest they will perform nearly identically in compute-heavy tasks like video encoding or GPU-accelerated filters.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is significant, though it does not translate into a large performance gap. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 is built on the Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, specifically using the Opal chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes diverge sharply: the 940MX packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, whereas the R7 M265 contains only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This gives the 940MX nearly double the transistor density (12.6M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²) and a substantially larger physical footprint.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The R7 M265 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, while the 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a narrower 64-bit bus, achieving a higher bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s. This means the 940MX delivers roughly 39% more memory bandwidth despite using half the bus width, a direct consequence of the faster GDDR5 memory type. Clock speeds are also higher on the NVIDIA part: the 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost, compared to the R7 M265's 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost, with memory clocks of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The compute resources favor the 940MX as well: it has 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, against the R7 M265's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs. The pixel rates are nearly identical (6.888 GPixel/s for the 940MX versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the R7 M265), but the texture rate and FP32 throughput are noticeably higher on the NVIDIA card: 27.55 GTexel/s and 881.7 GFLOPS versus 19.80 GTexel/s and 633.6 GFLOPS respectively. The 940MX also lists a 23 W TDP with no power connectors and an MXM module slot, while the R7 M265 has no TDP or slot width specified in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins with a score of 4939 against the AMD Radeon R7 M265's 4929. The deltaPct is -0.2%, meaning the 940MX is ahead by just 0.2% — a margin well within run-to-run variance for any benchmark. This result is striking because the hardware specifications would suggest a larger gap: the 940MX has 33% more shading units, 33% more TMUs, 39% more memory bandwidth, and 39% higher FP32 throughput. Yet the actual compute score barely differs, indicating that the R7 M265's wider 128-bit memory bus and GCN architecture compensate for its lower raw specifications in this particular workload.

When placed in context with each card's nearest rivals, the picture becomes clearer. The R7 M265's score of 4929 places it within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893), both of which are far more powerful cards in other respects. The 940MX's score of 4939 puts it 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) in this specific test, though that delta is similarly tiny. The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: the 940MX has an average of 4844 (including its Vulkan score), while the R7 M265 has only the single OpenCL score of 4929. This means the R7 M265's single-data-point average is actually 1.8% higher than the 940MX's average, but the head-to-head OpenCL comparison still favors the 940MX.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The 940MX has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from its 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the R7 M265 has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, compared to 384 on the AMD Radeon R7 M265.

Q: What is the performance difference in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The 940MX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test 4939 to 4929, a delta of -0.2% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, versus 950 million on a 77 mm² die for the AMD Radeon R7 M265.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Opal | GM107 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 825 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 633.6 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 23 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 10 Mobile |

The Verdict

The data indicates that despite the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX having substantially superior hardware specifications — 33% more shading units, 39% more memory bandwidth, and 39% higher FP32 throughput — the actual benchmark performance is a statistical dead heat. The 940MX wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test by 0.2%, which is negligible. The R7 M265, despite being an older GCN 1.0 part with fewer resources, manages to match the Maxwell-based 940MX in compute performance, likely due to its wider 128-bit memory bus partially offsetting the lower bandwidth.

For users prioritizing API compatibility and future-proofing, the 940MX is the clear choice: it supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the R7 M265's Vulkan 1.2.170, and it has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 4749, demonstrating functional Vulkan performance. The 940MX also has a specified 23 W TDP, making it a predictable power envelope for mobile designs, whereas the R7 M265 has no TDP listed. The 940MX's higher pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s) suggest it handles fill-rate-limited tasks modestly better.

However, the R7 M265 is not without merit. Its OpenCL score of 4929 is within 0.2% of the 940MX, and its average benchmark score of 4929 is actually higher than the 940MX's average of 4844, because the 940MX's Vulkan score drags its average down. The R7 M265 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the 940MX's DirectX 12 (11_0), a small but real feature advantage. Both cards are end-of-life, so neither should be considered for new purchases. The verdict is straightforward: pick the 940MX if you want the marginal performance edge, better API support, and confirmed power specifications; pick the R7 M265 only if you are locked into an AMD ecosystem and the 0.2% performance deficit is irrelevant, as the data shows they are functionally equivalent in compute workloads.