NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different generations, and benchmark results show that the newer 840M edges out the older GTX 760M in both recorded tests. The 840M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5764 against the GTX 760M’s 5604, a margin of 2.9%. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the 840M scores 4880 versus 4868 for the GTX 760M, a razor-thin 0.2% advantage. Despite the GTX 760M’s larger silicon and higher memory bandwidth, the data indicates the 840M holds a slight overall performance lead, with both parts sitting at the 31st percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant divergence between these two chips appears in the Geekbench OpenCL workload. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M posts 5764 points, which is 2.9% higher than the GTX 760M’s 5604. While a 2.9% delta is not transformative in real-world terms, it represents a consistent win for the Maxwell-based part in compute-heavy tasks. This result is notable because the 840M achieves it with drastically fewer shading units (384 versus 768) and a narrower 64-bit memory bus, suggesting architectural efficiency plays a larger role than raw resource counts.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a much closer outcome. The 840M scores 4880, while the GTX 760M trails slightly at 4868, a difference of just 0.2%. This near-tie indicates that in graphics API workloads, the two parts perform essentially identically, despite their internal differences. The 840M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record, but the margins are small enough that neither card can be considered dominant over the other.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, both GPUs land at the 31st percentile against all GPUs, confirming they occupy the same performance tier. The 840M’s average benchmark score is 5322, compared to the GTX 760M’s 5236. This 86-point gap (about 1.6%) aligns with the head-to-head results, reinforcing that the 840M is slightly faster on average. The nearest rivals for the 840M include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0.1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284, 0.7% slower), while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, which is 0.7% higher. For the GTX 760M, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) is 0.5% slower, the GeForce 940M (5284) is 0.9% faster, and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161) is 1.5% slower. These rival comparisons show that both cards are surrounded by similar-performing options, with no single competitor holding a commanding lead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is faster, scoring 5764 against the GTX 760M’s 5604, a 2.9% advantage.

Q: Is the GTX 760M ever ahead in the recorded benchmarks?

A: No. The GTX 760M loses both head-to-head tests: 5604 versus 5764 in OpenCL and 4868 versus 4880 in Vulkan.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 840M is 0.1% slower than the GeForce 930A and 0.7% faster than the GeForce 940M, while the GTX 760M is 0.5% faster than the Quadro 4000M and 1.5% faster than the Radeon R7 M260X.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The 840M has an average score of 5322, while the GTX 760M averages 5236.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, though the 840M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GTX 760M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 760M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split here is Maxwell versus Kepler. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the similarities end there in terms of design philosophy. The 840M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 760M places 2,540 million transistors on a much larger 221 mm² die, with a lower density of 11.5M per mm². This means the GTX 760M has more than double the silicon area and over twice the transistor count, yet this hardware advantage does not translate into superior benchmark scores.

The Maxwell architecture in the 840M appears to extract more performance per transistor. The 840M operates at a base clock of 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, whereas the GTX 760M runs at a significantly lower base clock of 628 MHz and boosts to 719 MHz. This clock speed disparity partially explains how the 840M compensates for having only 384 shading units compared to the GTX 760M’s 768. The 840M also has 16 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, while the GTX 760M has 64 TMUs and 16 ROPs. In terms of raw throughput, the GTX 760M still leads on paper: its pixel rate is 11.50 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, and its FP32 performance is 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. However, the benchmark results show that these theoretical advantages do not always manifest in actual workloads, likely due to the 840M’s more efficient Maxwell design.

The GTX 760M uses GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 840M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, managing only 16.02 GB/s. Despite this fourfold difference in memory bandwidth, the 840M still wins in compute tests, suggesting that memory bandwidth is not the bottleneck in these particular benchmarks. The GTX 760M also supports a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8) and has a higher TDP of 55 W compared to the 840M’s 33 W, which reflects its larger, more power-hungry design.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The 840M is based on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the GTX 760M uses Kepler with the GK106S chip. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the GTX 760M doubles the shading units to 768, quadruples TMUs to 64, and doubles ROPs to 16. Clock speeds are markedly different: the 840M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also distinct — the 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the GTX 760M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Transistor counts and die sizes are major differentiators: 1,020 million transistors on 77 mm² for the 840M versus 2,540 million on 221 mm² for the GTX 760M. Power consumption favors the 840M at 33 W TDP, while the GTX 760M draws 55 W. The 840M is an integrated-style IGP form factor, while the GTX 760M uses an MXM module, and the 840M connects via PCIe 3.0 x8 versus x16 for the GTX 760M. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 840M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GTX 760M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The 840M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation and is the successor to GeForce 700M, which includes the GTX 760M; the GTX 760M’s successor is the GeForce 800M line. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, and both are marked as end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the NVIDIA GeForce 840M as the better-performing GPU in these benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (5322 versus 5236), and achieves this with lower power consumption (33 W versus 55 W) and a much smaller die (77 mm² versus 221 mm²). The 840M’s wins are modest — 2.9% in OpenCL and 0.2% in Vulkan — but they are consistent across both recorded workloads. If the choice is purely based on benchmark scores, the 840M is the clear pick.

However, the GTX 760M is not without merit in this comparison. It offers significantly higher theoretical throughput metrics, including 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 863.2 GFLOPS, and more than four times the memory bandwidth (64.13 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s). These specifications suggest the GTX 760M might perform better in scenarios not captured by the two Geekbench tests, such as memory-bandwidth-intensive games or high-resolution textures. The GTX 760M also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8) and double the ROPs, which could benefit certain rasterization workloads. But based strictly on the available benchmark data, the 840M is the winner.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins in compute-heavy workloads as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, where its 5764 score outpaces the GTX 760M’s 5604. It also takes the Vulkan test, albeit narrowly, with 4880 versus 4868. The 840M is the more power-efficient option, drawing 33 W versus 55 W, and its smaller die size and lower transistor count make it a more compact solution. For users prioritizing lower power draw or running lightweight compute tasks, the 840M is the superior choice.

The GTX 760M wins on paper in raw throughput metrics: it has higher pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s), higher FP32 performance (1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (64.13 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s). It also has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, along with a wider memory bus and PCIe interface. In scenarios that stress these specifications — such as high-resolution gaming, heavy texture filtering, or multi-sample anti-aliasing — the GTX 760M’s hardware advantages could translate into better performance, even though the recorded benchmarks do not show it. For users who already own a GTX 760M and are considering an upgrade, the benchmark data shows the 840M offers only marginal gains, so the jump is not compelling. Conversely, for someone choosing between these two in a new system, the 840M is the safer bet based on measured results and lower power requirements.