NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA GeForce 930A are two nearly identical Maxwell-based mobile graphics solutions, separated by a single generation and a single benchmark result. The data shows the 840M holds a slim 0.1% lead in average benchmark score (5322 vs 5317), making the 930A effectively a sidegrade rather than an upgrade, with the key differentiators being clock speeds and texture unit counts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a fascinating case of near-perfect parity. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M edges out the 930A by a mere 0.1% in average benchmark score, a difference of only 5 points (5322 vs 5317). In the single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the 840M wins decisively with a score of 5764 against the 930A’s 5317, an 8.4% advantage. This makes the 840M the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL, despite the overall average scores being statistically tied.

The 930A, however, should not be dismissed. Its lower clock speeds are compensated by a higher texture unit count (24 TMUs vs 16), which allows it to achieve a higher texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s compared to the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s. For texture-bound tasks, the 930A is theoretically superior, even if the Geekbench results do not reflect this advantage. Users seeking a dedicated GPU for legacy DirectX 11 games or general compute should prefer the 840M; users prioritizing raw texture throughput in specific applications may find the 930A more suitable. Both sit at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, firmly in entry-level territory.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture and manufacturing process. They share the Maxwell architecture, are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, and feature the same die size of 77 mm² with 1,020 million transistors. The transistor density is identical at 13.2M per mm². The core chips differ in name only: the 840M uses the GM108S, while the 930A uses the GM108.

The architectural layout is where a subtle divergence appears. Both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs. The critical difference lies in the texture mapping units: the 840M has 16 TMUs, while the 930A has 24 TMUs. This 50% increase in TMUs for the 930A directly explains its higher texture rate despite lower clocks. The compute capabilities differ as well, with the 840M delivering 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS, a consequence of the 840M’s higher clock speeds. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the 840M. The 840M scores 5764, while the 930A scores 5317. This represents an 8.4% performance lead for the 840M. This is a substantial margin in the context of these two cards, especially considering their near-identical average scores. The result suggests that the 840M’s higher boost clock of 1124 MHz (vs 941 MHz) and its higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS provide a tangible advantage in OpenCL compute tasks, which often scale with raw shader throughput.

The data also reveals a peculiar situation with the average scores. The 840M’s average benchmark score of 5322 is an average of its two scores (5764 OpenCL and 4880 Vulkan). The 930A’s average of 5317 is derived from just the single OpenCL score. This means the 930A’s average is purely a reflection of its OpenCL performance, while the 840M’s average is pulled down by its Vulkan score. The delta between the two in the nearestRivals list is 0.1% in favor of the 840M, confirming that on an aggregate level, they perform nearly identically, even though the single head-to-head test shows a clear winner.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a pattern of compensation between the two models. The 840M operates with a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, significantly higher than the 930A’s base of 928 MHz and boost of 941 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly to the 840M’s superior pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs 7.528 GPixel/s) and FP32 performance (863.2 GFLOPS vs 722.7 GFLOPS).

Conversely, the 930A’s 24 TMUs give it a commanding lead in texture rate: 22.58 GTexel/s compared to the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s. This is a 25.6% advantage in texture throughput. All other core specifications are identical. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding the same 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are also the same at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Both are 33 W IGP parts with no power connectors, using a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The 840M launched on 2014-03-11, while the 930A launched one year later on 2015-03-12. The 840M’s successor is listed as the GeForce 900M, while the 930A has no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 5322, compared to the 930A’s 5317, a difference of 0.1%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The 840M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 5764 against the 930A’s 5317, an 8.4% performance advantage.

Q: Does the 930A have any specification advantage over the 840M?

A: Yes. The 930A has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) compared to the 840M’s 16, which gives it a higher texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Q: Are the memory subsystems identical?

A: Yes, both GPUs feature 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s and a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 840M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The 930A runs at a lower base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is the winner in compute performance and raw shader throughput. Its higher clock speeds provide a significant advantage in FP32 workloads, delivering 863.2 GFLOPS compared to the 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS. This is reflected in the 8.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. The 840M also achieves a higher pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s, making it the better choice for fill-rate-bound scenarios. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU compute, the data clearly points to the 840M.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins on texture processing. With 24 TMUs, it achieves a texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s, a 25.6% improvement over the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s. This makes the 930A theoretically better suited for games or applications that are heavily dependent on texture fetching and filtering, even if the overall benchmark scores do not reflect this advantage. The 930A also benefits from being a later release, which may imply better driver optimization in specific legacy titles, though this is not quantified in the data. For scenarios where the texture unit count is the limiting factor, the 930A is the superior chip.