AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and the AMD Radeon RX 560 occupy very different positions in the database, and the recorded data makes the gap unambiguous. Both are end-of-life parts with a 75 W thermal envelope, but the RX 560 wins the only head-to-head benchmark these two share, and it does so decisively. The 940M is a mobile MXM module built on Maxwell, while the RX 560 is a desktop Polaris card. The single direct comparison in the database, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the RX 560 more than two and a half times ahead of the 940M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in the database for both cards: geekbench_opencl. The 940M scores 6018. The RX 560 scores 16472. That is a delta of 63.5 percent in the RX 560's favor, meaning the AMD card delivers close to triple the compute throughput in this workload. The head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the RX 560 and 0 for the 940M.

To put those numbers in context, the 940M's Geekbench OpenCL result of 6018 is its stronger showing even against itself: its Geekbench Vulkan score is 4549, roughly a quarter lower than its own OpenCL result. The RX 560's OpenCL score of 16472, by contrast, sits well below its Geekbench Metal score of 18941, so the comparison actually understates the AMD card's best recorded compute result on this platform.

The RX 560 also carries a broader benchmark portfolio. Its Passmark results include 3671 in g3d, 1437 in GPU compute, 485 in g2d, and DirectX results spanning 57 (DirectX 9), 25 (DirectX 11), 21 (DirectX 12) and 16 (DirectX 10). The 940M has no Passmark entries in the database, so on depth of coverage alone, the RX 560 is the better-documented card.

Average benchmark scores deserve a caution here. The 940M's avgBenchmarkScore of 5284 is nominally higher than the RX 560's 4569, but these averages are computed over entirely different test sets, so they are not comparable across the two cards. The percentile fields tell a clearer story: the 940M sits at the 31st percentile against all GPUs in the database, the RX 560 at the 26th, and both are firmly in the lower band. Neither card was ever a performance leader, and the data reflects that.

Where Each One Wins

On pure benchmark evidence, the RX 560 wins everything the two cards directly contest. There is no workload in the database where the 940M outperforms the RX 560. The one shared test, OpenCL compute, goes to the RX 560 by 63.5 percent, and the architectural gap behind that number (double the shading units, double the texture units, a far wider memory bus) suggests the story would be the same in any graphics test.

Where the 940M retains relevance is form factor and platform role, not performance. It is an MXM module for portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent", no power connectors, and a mobile-focused design. If the question is "which card fits a laptop platform", the answer is the 940M by definition, since the RX 560 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 170 mm long with DVI, HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. These are not interchangeable parts, and the database treats them accordingly.

The RX 560's own rival list also frames its standing: it performs within roughly one percent of the Radeon R5 M230, Intel HD Graphics P530, Quadro M3000M and GTX 970M on averaged scores. The 940M's rivals, including the GTX 980M, 930A, 840M and GTX 760M, all cluster within about one percent of its average too. Note again that the two lists are built on different test mixes, so cross-list comparisons of those averages are not meaningful.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The 940M uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture on the GM107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors packed into a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M transistors per mm². The RX 560 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on the Polaris 21 chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors in a smaller 123 mm² die and a much higher density of 24.4M per mm².

The generational and node advantage translates directly into resources. The RX 560 has 1024 shading units to the 940M's 512, and 64 texture units to the 940M's 32. ROPs are tied at 16 each. The result shows up in the rates: the RX 560 delivers 81.60 GTexel/s of texture throughput versus 35.14 for the 940M, more than double. Pixel fill is closer, 20.40 GPixel/s against 17.57 GPixel/s, because the ROP counts match and the RX 560's clocks are only moderately higher.

Raw compute tells the same story. The RX 560 manages 2.611 TFLOPS FP32, with FP16 at the same 2.611 TFLOPS thanks to a 1:1 rate. The 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS FP32, and its FP16 capability is not recorded. That FP32 figure of the RX 560 is more than double the 940M's, which lines up cleanly with the 63.5 percent OpenCL deficit recorded for the 940M.

Clocks favor the AMD card as well: 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost for the RX 560, against 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost for the 940M. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores. On API support, the 940M actually lists the newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3) and both share OpenGL 4.6, while the RX 560 supports the fuller DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 versus 11_0). Launch lineages differ too: the 940M arrived in March 2015 as part of the GeForce 900M line, successor to the GeForce 800M; the RX 560 launched in April 2017 within the Polaris-based RX 500 generation, succeeded by Vega, at a launch MSRP of 99 USD.

Specification Differences

The spec sheet divergence is large for two cards with the same 75 W TDP.

• Memory: The 940M pairs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 560 pairs 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 112.0 GB/s. That is nearly eight times the memory bandwidth, and double the capacity, for the AMD card.
• Form factor: MXM module versus dual-slot desktop card, 170 mm long.
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Power delivery: Neither card requires power connectors, but the RX 560 carries a 250 W suggested PSU rating while the 940M lists none.
• Display outputs: "Portable Device Dependent" on the 940M versus one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b and one DisplayPort 1.4a on the RX 560.
• Shading and texture resources: 1024 shader and 64 TMU count on the RX 560 versus 512 and 32 on the 940M.
• FP16 support: Present on the RX 560 at 1:1 with FP32, not recorded on the 940M.
• Succession: the 940M was followed by GeForce 10 Mobile; the RX 560 was followed by Vega.

Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, both are end-of-life, and both draw 75 W. Everything else of substance differs.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster?

A: The RX 560, by a wide margin. It wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, 16472 to 6018, a 63.5 percent gap in its favor. Its FP32 compute is more than double, its texture throughput is more than double, and its memory bandwidth is nearly eight times higher.

Q: Can the 940M be used in a desktop?

A: Not in any conventional sense. It is an MXM module on an MXM-B (3.0) interface intended for portable devices, with display outputs described as portable-device-dependent. The RX 560 is the desktop part, a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x8 card at 170 mm.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus delivering 14.40 GB/s. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 112.0 GB/s. Modern games and compute workloads strongly favor the larger, faster pool.

Q: What power supply is needed?

A: Both cards have a 75 W TDP and no auxiliary power connectors. The RX 560's database entry suggests a 250 W PSU; the 940M lists no suggestion, as befits a mobile module.

Q: How do they rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: Both sit in the lower band: the 940M at the 31st percentile, the RX 560 at the 26th. Averaged benchmark scores (5284 versus 4569) are not directly comparable because they derive from different test sets.

Q: Which is newer?

A: The RX 560, launched in April 2017 on a 14 nm process. The 940M launched in March 2015 on a 28 nm process. Both are now end-of-life.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing based on performance, the data points one way: the RX 560. It wins the only head-to-head test by 63.5 percent, offers double the shader and texture resources, double the memory capacity, and nearly eight times the bandwidth, all within the same 75 W envelope. As a desktop card with a 250 W PSU suggestion and standard display outputs, it remains the practical pick of the two for any gaming or compute use the database tracks.

The 940M is not really a rival in this comparison; it is a different class of product. Its Maxwell-based GM107 chip, mobile MXM packaging and 2 GB of DDR3 make it a laptop-era solution whose role has been superseded by the GeForce 10 Mobile line that followed it. If the hardware on hand is a portable platform that accepts MXM modules, the 940M is what fits, and nothing in the desktop-oriented RX 560 spec applies. For everything else, the RX 560 is the stronger, better-documented card, and the recorded data supports that conclusion without qualification.