AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the same 2016 era, both built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, yet they deliver notably different benchmark outcomes. The recorded data shows the R7 M440 wins both head-to-head tests, but the 940MX offers a different feature set and API profile, making the choice less obvious than a simple score comparison. This analysis breaks down where each part excels, what the architecture differences imply, and which user profile each GPU serves best based solely on the measured values.

The Verdict

From the database measurements, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the stronger performer in raw compute benchmarks. It wins the OpenCL test with a score of 5214 against the 940MX’s 4939, a 5.6% advantage, and extends that lead dramatically in Vulkan, scoring 5751 versus 4749, a 21.1% gap. The average benchmark score also favors AMD: 5483 for the R7 M440 versus 4844 for the 940MX, a difference of roughly 13%. The percentile ranking reinforces this, with the R7 M440 sitting at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs while the 940MX lands at the 28th.

For users who prioritize compute workloads or Vulkan-based applications, the AMD part is the clear pick. The 21.1% Vulkan win is substantial and suggests better driver support or architectural efficiency for modern APIs. However, the 940MX is not without merit: it carries a 23 W TDP, which is a concrete power figure, while the R7 M440 has no recorded TDP in the database, implying it may be an integrated part (slot width is listed as IGP). The 940MX is an MXM module, making it a discrete, replaceable component in some laptops. If power draw is a hard constraint, the 940MX’s documented 23 W is a tangible advantage, though the R7 M440’s lack of a TDP figure means no direct comparison is possible from the data.

The verdict: pick the R7 M440 for higher compute scores and better Vulkan performance, especially if your workloads are API-heavy. Pick the 940MX if the discrete MXM form factor, lower documented power envelope, or a different API feature set (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170) matters more than raw benchmark numbers. For pure gaming or general GPU tasks measured by these two tests, the data favors AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M440 wins both recorded benchmarks, so its strengths are straightforward: higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores. In OpenCL, it leads by 5.6%, a moderate margin that indicates better general-purpose compute performance. In Vulkan, the lead expands to 21.1%, a dominant result that suggests the AMD architecture handles low-level graphics APIs with greater efficiency. This makes the R7 M440 the better choice for applications that leverage Vulkan, such as newer game engines or compute frameworks that use this API.

The 940MX, despite losing both tests, has wins in areas not covered by benchmark scores. Its memory type is GDDR5 versus the R7 M440’s DDR3, and its memory bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth advantage, which is not reflected in the compute scores but could matter in memory-bound scenarios. The 940MX also has a higher texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS), even though its OpenCL score is lower. This discrepancy suggests that the R7 M440’s scores come from better API efficiency or driver optimization, not raw hardware capability. The 940MX also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the R7 M440’s 1.2.170, and has a documented 23 W TDP, which is useful for system builders tracking power budgets.

Thus, the R7 M440 wins in actual measured compute performance, while the 940MX wins in theoretical throughput metrics (FP32, texture rate, bandwidth) and API version. Users who trust benchmark scores over specification-derived estimates should favor AMD; those who value higher memory bandwidth or newer API support may prefer NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The R7 M440 uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture on the Meso chip, while the 940MX uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture on the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on 28 nm at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: the R7 M440 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.4M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm²), meaning the 940MX is simply a larger chip with more resources.

Core counts diverge significantly. The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is 60% more shading units and 60% more TMUs for NVIDIA, yet the R7 M440 still wins the compute benchmarks. This points to architectural efficiency: GCN 3.0 appears to extract more performance per shader in these specific tests, or the AMD drivers are better optimized for OpenCL and Vulkan. The pixel rate is similar (7.128 GPixel/s for AMD versus 6.888 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a 3.4% difference favoring AMD), which is expected given equal ROP counts. The texture rate, however, heavily favors NVIDIA at 27.55 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s, a 54.6% gap that aligns with TMU counts, but does not translate into a benchmark win.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The R7 M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, achieving 40.10 GB/s. The 940MX’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 M440. The R7 M440 does not list a base or boost clock, whereas the 940MX has a 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. The R7 M440’s FP16 performance equals its FP32 at 570.2 GFLOPS, while the 940MX has no recorded FP16 value, suggesting it may lack native FP16 support or the database does not track it.

API support differs: the R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level is higher for AMD (12_0 versus 11_0), which could matter for certain DX12 titles, while NVIDIA has a newer Vulkan version. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have portable-device-dependent outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has an average score of 5483, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844, a difference of 13.2% in favor of AMD.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the R7 M440 scores 5751 against the 940MX’s 4749, giving AMD a 21.1% lead.

Q: Does the 940MX have a memory bandwidth advantage?

A: Yes, the 940MX’s GDDR5 memory provides 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, which is 2.8 times higher than the R7 M440’s 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 memory.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The 940MX contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R7 M440 has 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die. The 940MX is the larger chip.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R7 M440 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same DirectX support?

A: No. The R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning AMD has a higher feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct comparisons. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the R7 M440 scores 5214 and the 940MX scores 4939. The delta is 5.6% in AMD’s favor. This is a modest win, indicating that in general-purpose compute, the R7 M440 performs slightly better despite the 940MX having 60% more shading units and 54.6% higher FP32 throughput. The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the R7 M440 scores 5751 and the 940MX scores 4749. The delta jumps to 21.1%. This is the largest margin in the entire comparison and suggests that the GCN 3.0 architecture has a significant advantage in low-level graphics API workloads. The R7 M440 wins both tests, resulting in 2 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA.

These results are consistent with the nearest rival data. For the R7 M440, its closest competitors include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.3% slower), the GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.3% faster), the GeForce MX130 (5508, 0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.7% slower). The R7 M440 sits comfortably in that group, within 1% of several mid-range mobile parts. For the 940MX, its nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 560M (4855, 0.2% slower), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, 0.5% slower), the GeForce GTS 450 (4893, 1% slower), and the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, 1.1% slower). The 940MX’s average score of 4844 is below all of these, meaning it is at the lower end of its comparison group, while the R7 M440 is near the middle of its own group.

The practical implication is that the R7 M440’s benchmark advantage is not marginal but consistent across both tests. The Vulkan score difference of 21.1% is particularly notable because Vulkan is used in modern games and compute applications. However, the 940MX’s higher memory bandwidth (40.10 GB/s) and texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s) suggest that in workloads that are not well captured by these two benchmarks, such as texture-heavy rendering or memory-intensive tasks, the NVIDIA part could perform differently. The data does not include such tests, so the conclusion must stay within the measured scope: AMD wins both recorded benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but the 940MX uses a larger die (148 mm² versus 125 mm²) and more transistors (1,870 million versus 1,550 million). The R7 M440 has a smaller shading unit count (320 versus 512) and fewer TMUs (20 versus 32), but equal ROPs (8). The pixel rates are close (7.128 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s), while the texture rate favors NVIDIA (27.55 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS for the 940MX versus 570.2 GFLOPS for the R7 M440, a 54.6% difference. The R7 M440 has FP16 at 1:1 ratio (570.2 GFLOPS), while the 940MX has no recorded FP16 value.

Memory specifications diverge sharply: the R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 40.10 GB/s. The memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 861 MHz, while the R7 M440 has no base or boost clocks listed. The TDP is 23 W for the 940MX, while the R7 M440 has no TDP value. The slot width is IGP for AMD and MXM Module for NVIDIA, with no power connectors for the 940MX and none listed for the R7 M440. The bus interface is the same (PCIe 3.0 x8), and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

API support differs: the R7 M440 has DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the 940MX’s DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4. The release dates are close (May 2016 for AMD, June 2016 for NVIDIA), both are end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The R7 M440’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile, while the 940MX’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores. The R7 M440’s architecture is GCN 3.0 on the Meso chip, while the 940MX is Maxwell on GM107. In summary, the 940MX offers more raw hardware resources (shaders, TMUs, bandwidth, FP32) and a newer Vulkan API, but the R7 M440 delivers higher measured benchmark scores, particularly in Vulkan, making the performance data the decisive factor in this comparison.