GPU Comparison

# The Verdict

Benchmark results position the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX as the clear performance leader in this comparison. The 940MX wins both head-to-head tests, taking the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 4,939 against the Intel HD Graphics P530's 4,549, an 8.6% advantage, and the Vulkan test with 4,749 versus 4,571, a 3.9% edge. The average benchmark score confirms the pattern: the 940MX averages 4,844 across all tests, while the Intel solution averages 4,560.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life graphics options, the data points firmly toward the 940MX if raw compute performance is the priority. The 940MX also holds a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus the P530's 26, meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of all GPUs in the database. The discrete NVIDIA part delivers roughly 8% better OpenCL throughput and nearly 4% better Vulkan performance, which translates into measurably better responsiveness in GPU-accelerated applications.

However, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is not without its own rationale. As an integrated processor graphics solution, it consumes 15 W compared to the 940MX's 23 W, and it relies on system shared memory rather than dedicated GDDR5. For systems where power efficiency and simplicity matter more than peak throughput, the P530's lower TDP and integrated nature make it a defensible choice. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the 940MX wins on performance across every benchmark recorded, while the P530 wins on power efficiency and system integration.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is built on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. It belongs to the GeForce 900M generation and was released on June 27, 2016, succeeding the GeForce 800M and preceding the GeForce 10 Mobile series.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 takes a different approach entirely. It uses the Skylake GT2 chip based on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 14 nm+ process. The die size is 123 mm². While the transistor count is not listed, the smaller die on a more advanced process node suggests a fundamentally different integration strategy. This is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that connects via the Ring Bus, whereas the 940MX is a discrete MXM module using PCIe 3.0 x8.

Clock speeds reveal another key architectural divergence. The 940MX runs at a base clock of 795 MHz with a boost clock of 861 MHz, while the P530 operates at a much lower base of 350 MHz but boosts to 1,000 MHz. The Intel part compensates for its narrower execution resources with a higher peak clock. Memory architecture differs dramatically: the 940MX has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth and 1253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective), while the P530 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Shader resources heavily favor the NVIDIA part. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the P530 has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This configuration gives the 940MX a pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s, versus 3.000 GPixel/s and 16.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part. Floating-point throughput tells a similar story: the 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the P530 manages 384.0 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature not listed for the 940MX.

API support differs in one notable respect. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 940MX implements DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0 and Vulkan 1.4, while the P530 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3. Display output connectivity is portable-device dependent for the NVIDIA part and motherboard dependent for the Intel IGP.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4,844 across all benchmark tests, compared to 4,560 for the Intel HD Graphics P530, a difference of roughly 6%.

Q: How much faster is the 940MX in OpenCL performance?

A: The 940MX scores 4,939 in the Geekbench OpenCL test versus 4,549 for the P530, giving the NVIDIA part an 8.6% lead.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P530 have any performance advantage in the head-to-head tests?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data shows the 940MX winning both tests, OpenCL by 8.6% and Vulkan by 3.9%, with zero wins recorded for the Intel part.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The 940MX has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The P530 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated video memory.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 has a lower TDP of 15 W, reflecting its integrated design.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. Process node: the 940MX uses 28 nm from TSMC, while the P530 uses 14 nm+ from Intel. The 940MX's chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die; the P530's die is 123 mm² with no transistor count listed. Transistor density for the 940MX is 12.6 million per square millimeter; no density figure exists for the Intel part.

Clock speeds diverge significantly: the 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost, while the P530 runs at 350 MHz base and 1,000 MHz boost. Memory is another major differentiator, the 940MX has 2 GB GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the P530 uses system shared memory in all categories with system-dependent bandwidth.

Execution resources show a wide gap: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the 940MX versus 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 3 ROPs for the P530. Pixel rate is 6.888 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 27.55 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. The P530 lists FP16 performance at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while no FP16 figure exists for the 940MX.

Power and form factor: the 940MX is a 23 W MXM module with no power connectors; the P530 is a 15 W IGP. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 940MX versus Ring Bus for the P530. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for NVIDIA and motherboard dependent for Intel. API support differs in DirectX feature level (11_0 versus 12_1) and Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3). Release dates are June 27, 2016 for the 940MX and August 31, 2015 for the P530.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data records two tests, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 940MX scores 4,939 against the P530's 4,549, a delta of 8.6%. This is the largest margin between the two parts and reflects the substantial difference in shading units and memory bandwidth. The 940MX has 512 shading units and 40.10 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth, while the P530 must make do with 192 shading units and shared system memory. The OpenCL workload appears to reward the NVIDIA part's raw compute throughput.

The Vulkan test shows a narrower margin. The 940MX scores 4,749 versus 4,571 for the P530, a 3.9% difference. The smaller gap in Vulkan suggests that the Intel architecture's higher boost clock of 1,000 MHz (versus 861 MHz for NVIDIA) helps close the performance distance in certain graphics workloads. The P530 also supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, which indicates a more modern feature set for API-level optimizations, even if the underlying hardware is less powerful.

Contextualizing these scores against nearest rivals adds perspective. The 940MX's average score of 4,844 places it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4,855, -0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4,867, -0.5% delta). Interestingly, the RTX 3080 12 GB appears in the 940MX's nearest rivals list with an average score of 4,791, representing a 1.1% delta, though this likely reflects that GPU's OpenCL performance profile rather than any meaningful equivalence in gaming. The P530's average of 4,560 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569, -0.2% delta) and AMD FirePro W4190M (4,505, 1.2% delta), with the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M slightly ahead at 4,621 (-1.3% delta).

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins decisively in raw compute performance. Both head-to-head benchmarks favor it, with an 8.6% lead in OpenCL and a 3.9% lead in Vulkan. Its 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs provide substantially more parallel execution capacity than the P530's 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. The dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth eliminates the bottleneck of shared system memory, making the 940MX the better choice for GPU-accelerated applications such as OpenCL compute tasks, video encoding, and any workload that benefits from consistent, high-bandwidth memory access. The 940MX's higher pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s and texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s further reinforce its advantage in graphics-intensive scenarios.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in power efficiency and system simplicity. Its 15 W TDP is 8 W lower than the 940MX's 23 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained laptop designs. As an integrated processor graphics solution, it requires no separate MXM module, no power connectors, and connects via the Ring Bus directly to the CPU. The P530 also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0) and includes FP16 support at 768.0 GFLOPS, which could benefit certain mixed-precision compute workloads if software leverages that capability. The P530's higher boost clock of 1,000 MHz helps narrow the gap in Vulkan performance, suggesting that its architecture scales reasonably well in less compute-bound scenarios.

The data does not show the P530 winning any benchmark outright. Its strengths are operational rather than performance-based: lower power draw, integrated form factor, and a more modern DirectX feature set. For systems prioritizing battery life and minimal thermal footprint over peak throughput, the P530 is the rational pick. For everything else, the 940MX's benchmark dominance makes it the performance choice.