AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and AMD Radeon R7 M340 represent two vastly different tiers of mobile graphics performance, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive gap. The GTX 980M, a high-end part from NVIDIA’s Maxwell generation, dominates in every measurable category, while the R7 M340, an entry-level GCN 3.0 chip, trails by margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. In the two head-to-head tests available, the GTX 980M wins both, with the largest gap appearing in OpenCL compute workloads, where it scores 23832 against the R7 M340’s 4932, a 383.2% advantage. The Vulkan results are similarly lopsided, with the GTX 980M posting 17703 versus 5193, a 240.9% lead. These figures place the GTX 980M in a completely different performance class, and the data leaves no ambiguity about which GPU is faster.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most telling statistic comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 980M’s 23832 score dwarfs the R7 M340’s 4932. This 383.2% delta is not merely a win; it represents a four-fold jump in raw compute throughput. The GTX 980M’s shader count of 1536, combined with its 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, explains this chasm. The R7 M340, with only 320 shading units and 653.4 GFLOPS, cannot compete on any level of parallel processing.

Vulkan performance tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The GTX 980M scores 17703, while the R7 M340 manages only 5193, a 240.9% difference. This gap is critical for modern gaming, as Vulkan is the API of choice for many contemporary titles. The GTX 980M’s support for Vulkan 1.4, compared to the R7 M340’s Vulkan 1.2.170, also suggests better future-proofing, though the raw performance difference is the dominant factor here.

Contextualizing these scores against each GPU’s nearest rivals further highlights the divide. The GTX 980M’s average benchmark score of 5308 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317) and 0.3% behind the GeForce 840M (5322), but it is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 940M (5284). This clustering means the GTX 980M sits in a narrow performance band among its peers. The R7 M340, conversely, has an average score of 5063, placing it exactly level with the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063, 0% delta) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034). The R7 M340’s percentile rank of 30 versus the GTX 980M’s 31 shows both GPUs are near the median of all GPUs, but the absolute scores tell the real story: the GTX 980M is operating at a far higher level, with its PassMark G3D score of 7338 compared to the R7 M340’s absence of such a result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5308, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 5063, a difference of 245 points.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980M in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23832 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 383.2% higher than the R7 M340’s 4932.

Q: Does the R7 M340 win any head-to-head benchmarks against the GTX 980M?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 980M wins both, with the R7 M340 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference between the two GPUs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 980M supports feature level 12_1, while the R7 M340 supports feature level 12_0.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M has a memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s using GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M340 has 16.00 GB/s using DDR3 memory, a 10x difference.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, -0.2%), while the R7 M340’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063, 0%).

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M is the clear winner in every benchmark category present in the data. Its performance in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan is not just a marginal improvement but a generational leap. Users running compute-heavy applications, such as video rendering or machine learning workloads, will see massive speedups on the GTX 980M. The Vulkan score advantage also makes it the preferred choice for gamers playing titles that leverage this API, as the higher frame rates and smoother gameplay are directly supported by the 240.9% performance delta. The GTX 980M’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, compared to the R7 M340’s 2 GB of DDR3, further cements its position for modern game textures and complex scenes.

The R7 M340’s only possible advantage lies in its power efficiency, though the FACT PACK does not provide TDP figures for either card. Its smaller die size (125 mm² versus 398 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,550 million versus 5,200 million) suggest it draws less power, but without specific wattage data, this remains speculative. The R7 M340 is also a later release (May 2015 versus October 2014), but the GTX 980M’s superior architecture offsets any age disadvantage. For users with basic computing needs—office work, web browsing, or light media playback—the R7 M340 might suffice, but for any demanding graphical task, the GTX 980M is the only rational choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ dramatically across every core specification. The GTX 980M features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, while the R7 M340 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This represents a 4.8x advantage in shading units for the NVIDIA part. Clock speeds also favor the GTX 980M, with a base clock of 1038 MHz and boost of 1127 MHz, versus the R7 M340’s 943 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost. The memory subsystem is where the gap widens further: the GTX 980M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M340 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 16.00 GB/s.

The GTX 980M’s pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s dwarf the R7 M340’s 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s. FP32 performance tells the same story: 3.462 TFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M340 does have a 1:1 FP16 ratio (653.4 GFLOPS), but the GTX 980M lacks FP16 data entirely. Interface differences include the GTX 980M’s MXM-B (3.0) bus versus the R7 M340’s PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 980M also lists a slot width of MXM Module, while the R7 M340 has no such specification. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 980M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M series, while the R7 M340 follows the Solar System generation.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 980M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The R7 M340, in contrast, uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with only 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, for a density of 12.4M per mm². The GTX 980M’s larger die and higher transistor count enable its superior shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

In terms of API support, the GTX 980M offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M340 provides DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher Vulkan version on the GTX 980M indicates better support for recent extensions and optimizations. The GTX 980M’s memory clock runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the R7 M340’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, as expected for their respective generations. The GTX 980M is the predecessor to the GeForce 10 Mobile series, while the R7 M340’s successor is Polaris Mobile. These architectural differences—from transistor budget to API levels—explain the wide performance gulf observed in benchmarks.