NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear division of labor between these two mobile GPUs, but it is not a balanced split. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins both recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the GeForce 830M with zero victories in the direct comparisons. This is not a subtle margin either; the 940MX builds its case on substantial leads in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the use-case split, the 940MX dominates in compute-oriented tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4939 against the 830M's 4324 represents a 12.5% advantage, which translates into faster execution for general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, and any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration. The Vulkan gap is even more pronounced: 4749 versus 3590, a 24.4% lead for the 940MX. This suggests that gaming or rendering workloads using the Vulkan API will see a notably larger benefit from choosing the 940MX over the 830M.

Where might the 830M claw back ground? The data does not show any benchmark where it wins outright. Its pixel rate is higher at 9.200 GPixel/s compared to 6.888 GPixel/s for the 940MX, which hints at potential fill-rate advantages in certain pixel-bound scenarios, but no direct benchmark confirms this in practice. The 830M also boosts to a higher clock speed (1150 MHz versus 861 MHz), but raw clock advantage does not translate into benchmark victories here. The recorded wins are exclusively for the 940MX, and the 830M's role appears limited to lighter workloads where its lower specifications are sufficient.

The percentile placement reinforces this hierarchy. The 940MX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the 830M rests at the 24th. Neither is a high-flying part, but the 940MX occupies a meaningfully higher tier in the overall performance distribution. For any buyer choosing between these two, the data consistently points to the 940MX as the stronger performer across both tested APIs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Maxwell architecture and are built by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the internal implementation diverges significantly. The 830M uses the GM108 chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the 940MX steps up to the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. That is roughly 83% more transistors and nearly double the die area, which explains why the 940MX can offer substantially more compute resources despite being the newer part.

The transistor density tells an interesting story: the 830M packs 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the 940MX achieves 12.6 million. The smaller chip is slightly denser, but the larger GM107 die gives the 940MX more room for execution units. This shows up directly in the core counts. The 940MX doubles the shading units to 512 versus 256, doubles the texture mapping units to 32 versus 16, and keeps the same 8 ROPs. More shading units mean more parallel floating-point work, and more TMUs mean faster texture fetching, both of which contribute to its benchmark superiority.

Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The 830M uses DDR3 memory running at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth over a 64-bit bus. The 940MX switches to GDDR5 at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 40.10 GB/s over the same 64-bit bus. That is a 2.8x increase in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts compute and graphics workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive. Both cards carry 2 GB of VRAM, but the type and speed of that memory create a chasm in throughput.

Clock speeds go in the opposite direction. The 830M runs at a base of 1082 MHz and boosts to 1150 MHz, while the 940MX is much more conservative at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. The 830M's clocks are 36% higher at base and 34% higher at boost, yet the 940MX still wins across the board. This indicates that the architectural advantages of more cores and faster memory outweigh the clock deficit. Power consumption also favors the 940MX despite its larger chip: it draws 23 W TDP versus 33 W for the 830M. The 940MX achieves higher performance while consuming less power, a signal of the efficiency gains from the newer GeForce 900M generation.

Form factor and connectivity differ as well. The 830M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the 940MX is an MXM module. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and rely on portable device-dependent display outputs, so external connectivity is similar. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The first direct comparison comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the 940MX scores 4939 against the 830M's 4324. The delta of -12.5% indicates the 830M trails by that margin. This is a solid, if not overwhelming, win for the 940MX in a compute-heavy API. The 830M's higher clock speed and pixel rate cannot compensate for the 940MX's doubled shading units and superior GDDR5 bandwidth.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a more lopsided story. The 940MX posts 4749, while the 830M manages only 3590. The delta here is -24.4%, meaning the 830M is nearly a quarter slower in this API. Vulkan is a lower-overhead graphics API that can expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, and the 940MX's extra execution resources shine through. The gap is large enough that games or applications built on Vulkan would show a clearly visible performance difference between these two parts.

It is worth remembering the 830M's OpenCL score is relatively close to its nearest rivals in the database. Its average benchmark score of 3957 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956), NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953), NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964), and AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977). The 940MX, by contrast, competes in a higher bracket with an average of 4844, putting it within 1.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) in this particular metric, though that is a statistical quirk rather than a meaningful comparison. Its more relevant rivals include the GeForce GTX 560M (4855, -0.2%), AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, -0.5%), and GeForce GTS 450 (4893, -1%).

The trend across both benchmarks is consistent: the 940MX wins by a wider margin in Vulkan than in OpenCL. This suggests that the 940MX's architectural advantages are more fully utilized by the Vulkan API, which can better exploit its parallel compute resources. The data does not provide any scenario where the 830M closes the gap, and the 12.5% OpenCL deficit is the closest it comes.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the superior GPU in every benchmarked scenario. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (4844 versus 3957), and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs (28th versus 24th). Buyers who have the option to choose should select the 940MX without hesitation, as it delivers 12.5% to 24.4% better performance depending on the API.

The 830M is not without its traits. It has a higher pixel rate, a higher boost clock, and a smaller, denser die, which could make it a more compact solution for very light workloads. However, the data offers no evidence that these characteristics translate into any benchmark win. In the database's measurements, the 830M consistently falls behind, and its only saving grace is that its performance is broadly comparable to older or lower-tier parts like the GeForce GT 745M and AMD Radeon R5 M420.

For users whose primary concern is general compute or Vulkan-based gaming, the 940MX is the clear choice. For users who are constrained by power or form factor, the 940MX even offers a lower TDP at 23 W versus 33 W, making it the more efficient option as well. There is no use case in the data where the 830M comes out ahead, so the verdict is unambiguous: the 940MX is the better part across all measured dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4844 on average, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957, a difference of roughly 22%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the 940MX scores 4749 versus 3590 for the 830M. The 830M trails by 24.4%, making this the largest margin in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type?

A: No. The 830M uses DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses GDDR5 with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. Both have a 64-bit bus and 2 GB capacity.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The 940MX has 512 shading units, exactly double the 256 found in the 830M. It also has 32 TMUs versus 16, though both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Is the 830M or 940MX more power efficient?

A: The 940MX has a lower TDP of 23 W compared to 33 W for the 830M, despite delivering higher benchmark scores across both OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: What process node are both GPUs built on?

A: Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The 830M uses the GM108 chip, while the 940MX uses the larger GM107 chip.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

|----------------|---------------------|----------------------|

| Chip | GM108 | GM107 |

| Generation | GeForce 800M | GeForce 900M |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 512 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 23 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4324 | 4939 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 3590 | 4749 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 3957 | 4844 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 24 | 28 |