AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and AMD Radeon Vega 3 represent two very different answers to the same question: how much graphics capability can you extract from a thin, power-frugal laptop? The 940MX is a dedicated mobile GPU built on Maxwell at 28 nm, while the Vega 3 is an integrated solution fused into AMD's Picasso silicon at 12 nm. The recorded data gives the 940MX a clean sweep of the shared benchmarks, an average score of 4844 against 4268 for the Vega 3, and a percentile placement of 28 versus 25 across the full database. That is a real gap, roughly 13 percent on the average, but both parts sit in the same lower tier of the rankings, and each has structural advantages the other cannot match. The data shows a dedicated-GPU win on throughput and a clearer efficiency and feature story on the integrated side.

The Verdict

For anyone choosing strictly on the benchmark record, the GeForce 940MX is the stronger graphics part. It wins both head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL by 24.6 percent (4939 to 3963) and Geekbench Vulkan by 19.9 percent (4749 to 3961), and its average benchmark score of 4844 sits notably above the Vega 3's 4268. Its nearest rivals confirm the placement: the 940MX lands within a fraction of a percent of the GeForce GTX 560M, Radeon R6 M255DX, and GTS 450, GPUs from an older dedicated tier. The Vega 3 clusters around the GTX 460M, FirePro W2100, and Quadro K3000M.

The Vega 3, however, wins on every axis the benchmarks do not measure but the specifications do. It carries a 15 W TDP against 23 W, occupies no slot at all as an IGP rather than an MXM module, and benefits from a far denser 12 nm GlobalFoundries process with 23.5M transistors per mm² versus 12.6M on TSMC's 28 nm node for the 940MX. It also exposes a newer DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 versus 11_0). Users who prioritize battery headroom and platform simplicity should lean Vega 3; users who want the higher measured compute throughput should take the 940MX.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from opposite design philosophies. The 940MX uses NVIDIA's GM107 chip, Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900M mobile generation. It was fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, and succeeds the GeForce 800M line, itself succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile. It entered production-side availability in June 2016 and is now end-of-life.

The Vega 3 is not a standalone chip in the traditional sense. Its Picasso silicon, from AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture and the Vega IGP generation, is a 210 mm² die carrying 4,940 million transistors, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. That is more than two and a half times the transistor count of the GM107 part, though most of those transistors serve the integrated compute functions around the graphics portion. It launched in November 2019, succeeded the GCN 3.0 IGP, and was itself followed by the Vega II IGP. Both parts are now end-of-life.

The resource allocation differs sharply. The 940MX fields 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the Vega 3 offers 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Clocking strategies also diverge. The 940MX runs a narrow 795 MHz base to 861 MHz boost range, with 5 Gbps effective GDDR5 memory. The Vega 3 swings from a 300 MHz base up to a 1100 MHz boost, a much wider dynamic range typical of an integrated design that rides the thermal envelope available at any given moment.

Memory is the deepest divide. The 940MX has its own 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering a fixed 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 3 shares system memory entirely: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. That makes the 940MX predictable and the Vega 3 variable, since integrated memory performance scales with the host platform's RAM configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two tests appear in both records, and the 940MX wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 940MX scores 4939 against 3963 for the Vega 3, a 24.6 percent margin. OpenCL is the broadest general-compute measure in the dataset, so this is the most meaningful single indicator of raw GPU compute capability between the pair. A gap that wide is not measurement noise; it reflects the 940MX's much larger resource counts, with nearly three times the shading units and double the ROPs.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 940MX scores 4749 to 3961, a 19.9 percent win. The margin narrows here, which is consistent with the Vega 3's higher 1100 MHz boost clock partially compensating for its smaller engine when the thermal budget allows it.

The Vega 3's record includes a third test, Geekbench Metal, at 4880, but the 940MX has no Metal entry, so no direct comparison is possible there. On the shared territory, the data is unambiguous: two wins for the 940MX, zero for the Vega 3. Averaging the recorded scores gives 4844 for the NVIDIA part versus 4268 for the AMD part, roughly a 13 percent overall advantage, and the percentile figures (28 against 25 across all GPUs in the database) show both translating into a similar relative standing, near neighbors in the same performance neighborhood, with the 940MX consistently ahead.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two parts diverge:

• Manufacturer and chip: NVIDIA GM107 versus AMD Picasso
• Architecture: Maxwell versus GCN 5.0
• Generation: GeForce 900M versus Vega IGP (Picasso)
• Process: 28 nm TSMC versus 12 nm GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 4,940 million
• Die size: 148 mm² versus 210 mm²
• Density: 12.6M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm²
• Clocks: 795/861 MHz base/boost versus 300/1100 MHz
• Memory: dedicated 2 GB GDDR5, 64-bit, 40.10 GB/s versus fully system-shared
• Shading units: 512 versus 192
• TMUs: 32 versus 12
• ROPs: 8 versus 4
• Pixel rate: 6.888 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 27.55 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 881.7 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: not specified versus 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 23 W versus 15 W
• Form factor: MXM Module versus IGP
• Bus: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus IGP
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus Motherboard Dependent
• Release: June 2016 versus November 2019
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M versus GCN 3.0 IGP
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile versus Vega II IGP

Common ground exists too: both support OpenGL 4.6, need no power connectors, lack ray tracing and tensor cores, and are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. It wins both shared benchmarks, Geekbench OpenCL by 24.6 percent and Geekbench Vulkan by 19.9 percent, and holds a higher average benchmark score, 4844 versus 4268, plus a higher database percentile, 28 versus 25.

Q: How much lower power does the Vega 3 consume?

A: The Vega 3 is rated at 15 W TDP versus 23 W for the 940MX, a meaningful reduction for an integrated part that also requires no MXM slot or discrete board space.

Q: Does the Vega 3 have any performance-oriented advantage in the specifications?

A: Yes, a few. It boosts to 1100 MHz versus 861 MHz, it doubles its FP16 throughput to 844.8 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, and it targets DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 versus 11_0 on the 940MX.

Q: Which GPUs from the database are closest rivals to each part?

A: The 940MX sits within about one percent of the GeForce GTX 560M, Radeon R6 M255DX, and GTS 450. The Vega 3 clusters near the GTX 460M, FirePro W2100, Quadro K3000M, and RTX 4070 GDDR6's recorded entry in its rival set.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The 940MX ships with dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 across a 64-bit bus at 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 3 shares all memory with the system, so its capacity and bandwidth depend entirely on the host platform.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The 940MX was released in June 2016 and was succeeded by the GeForce 10 Mobile line; the Vega 3 arrived in November 2019 and was followed by the Vega II IGP.

Where Each One Wins

GeForce 940MX wins for:

• Raw compute throughput, with 881.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 422.4 GFLOPS, more than double
• Pixel and texturing workloads, at 6.888 GPixel/s and 27.55 GTexel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s
• OpenCL workloads, by 24.6 percent in the recorded data
• Vulkan workloads, by 19.9 percent
• Consistent memory bandwidth, thanks to dedicated GDDR5 at a fixed 40.10 GB/s
• Newer Vulkan API support at 1.4

Radeon Vega 3 wins for:

• Power efficiency, at 15 W versus 23 W TDP
• Platform simplicity, as an IGP needing no slot, no MXM module, and no discrete memory
• FP16 throughput at 844.8 GFLOPS, aided by its 2:1 rate
• Higher boost clocks, reaching 1100 MHz
• Newer DirectX feature level, 12_1 versus 11_0
• A much newer, denser process node at 12 nm

In short, the benchmark column belongs to the 940MX, and the efficiency and integration column belongs to the Vega 3. The data frames this as a throughput-versus-economy trade-off within the same general performance class rather than a mismatch between classes.