NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce 930A and GeForce 940MX are both Maxwell-based mobile graphics solutions aimed at thin-and-light laptops, but the recorded data shows they are not direct peers. The 930A leads in the only shared benchmark, while the 940MX counters with a larger GPU, faster memory, and a higher FP32 ceiling. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architecture differences, and which GPU suits which workload based strictly on the database measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one benchmark where both GPUs appear: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the GeForce 930A scores 5317, while the GeForce 940MX scores 4939. The 930A wins by 7.7%, a margin that is clear but not overwhelming. In percentile terms, the 930A sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the 940MX sits at the 28th percentile. That means the 930A is positioned slightly higher in the overall performance distribution, even though the 940MX has a newer release date and a larger chip.

The 930A’s nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce 840M (5322, delta -0.1%), the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, delta 0.2%), and the GeForce 940M (5284, delta 0.6%). The 930A lands essentially neck-and-neck with the 840M, less than a tenth of a percent behind, and it edges out the GTX 980M by 0.2% and the 940M by 0.6%. Those deltas are small, meaning the 930A sits in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, putting it 0.8% ahead of the 930A, which is the largest gap in that rival group.

The 940MX, by contrast, has a different set of nearest rivals. Its 4939 OpenCL score places it near the GeForce GTX 560M (4855, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, delta -0.5%), and the GeForce GTS 450 (4893, delta -1%). The 940MX is 1.1% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791), a delta that reflects the lower end of the 940MX’s performance range. The 940MX’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4844, which pulls its percentile down to 28. That average includes its Vulkan result of 4749, a test the 930A does not have recorded. The 930A’s average score is simply its OpenCL score of 5317, as that is its only benchmark entry.

The head-to-head delta of 7.7% in favor of the 930A is the only direct comparison available. It is a meaningful lead, but it comes from a single workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the 930A is the stronger part. The 940MX does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmark, so its case rests on architectural specs and efficiency rather than measured wins.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. That is where the similarities in silicon end. The 930A uses the GM108 chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The 940MX uses the larger GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The 940MX has nearly double the transistor count and almost double the die area. Transistor density is slightly higher on the 930A at 13.2 million per mm², versus 12.6 million per mm² on the 940MX, but that density advantage does not translate into a compute win.

The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. That means the 940MX has 33% more shading units and 33% more TMUs. The FP32 throughput reflects that: the 940MX reaches 881.7 GFLOPS, while the 930A reaches 722.7 GFLOPS. The 940MX is 22% ahead in raw floating-point capability. Texture rate also favors the 940MX at 27.55 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. Pixel rate, however, goes the other way: the 930A delivers 7.528 GPixel/s, while the 940MX delivers 6.888 GPixel/s. The 930A’s higher pixel rate comes from its higher clock speeds, which partially offset its fewer ROPs.

Clock speeds are a notable differentiator. The 930A runs at a base of 928 MHz and a boost of 941 MHz. The 940MX runs at a base of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz. The 930A is 14% higher at base and 9% higher at boost. This explains why the 930A wins the OpenCL benchmark despite having fewer compute units. The 940MX’s larger core is held back by lower clocks in that specific test.

Memory is where the 940MX pulls ahead decisively. The 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1001 MHz and 2 Gbps effective speed. That yields a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective speed. Its bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s, which is 150% higher than the 930A’s. For any workload that depends on memory throughput, such as texture-heavy scenes or large data transfers, the 940MX has a substantial edge.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 930A’s slot width is listed as IGP, while the 940MX is an MXM Module. Power draw favors the 940MX: it has a TDP of 23 W, while the 930A has a TDP of 33 W. The 940MX delivers more compute and more memory bandwidth while consuming 30% less power, according to the recorded TDP figures. Neither requires external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The 930A wins in the only recorded benchmark, but its advantage is specific to OpenCL compute. Its higher clock speeds and higher pixel rate make it better suited for tasks that are latency-sensitive or that rely on fill rates. The 930A’s 7.7% OpenCL lead over the 940MX, combined with its 31st percentile placement, suggests it handles general compute workloads with a slight edge. Its lower memory bandwidth is a limitation, but for short bursts of computation, the clocks carry it.

The 940MX wins on architectural specs that matter for sustained workloads. It has 512 shading units versus 384, 32 TMUs versus 24, and 40.10 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s. Its FP32 output of 881.7 GFLOPS is 22% higher than the 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS. For games or applications that stream large textures, the GDDR5 memory will prevent bottlenecks that the DDR3 on the 930A cannot avoid. The 940MX also draws less power at 23 W versus 33 W, which is an advantage in thin laptops where thermal headroom is tight. Its lower TDP means it can sustain higher clocks for longer in a constrained chassis, even if its peak boost is lower.

The 940MX’s Vulkan score of 4749 is not compared directly to the 930A, but it shows the 940MX can handle modern API workloads. The 930A has no recorded Vulkan result, so its Vulkan performance is unknown. For users who prioritize the latest graphics APIs, the 940MX has at least one data point, while the 930A has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The GeForce 930A scores 5317 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GeForce 940MX scores 4939. The 930A leads by 7.7%.

Q: Does the 940MX have more shading units?

A: Yes, the 940MX has 512 shading units, while the 930A has 384. That is a 33% difference in favor of the 940MX.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The 940MX has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5, while the 930A has 16.02 GB/s using DDR3. The 940MX’s bandwidth is 150% higher.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W, while the 930A has a TDP of 33 W. The 940MX consumes 30% less power.

Q: Are both GPUs the same architecture?

A: Both use NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. The 930A uses the GM108 chip, and the 940MX uses the GM107 chip.

Q: Does the 930A have a Vulkan benchmark result?

A: No, the database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score for the 930A. The 940MX has both OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. The GeForce 930A is the faster GPU in the single recorded OpenCL benchmark, beating the 940MX by 7.7% and ranking at the 31st percentile overall. Its higher clock speeds and pixel rate give it a real compute advantage in that test. For users running OpenCL-based applications, the 930A is the better pick.

The GeForce 940MX is the better overall hardware package on paper. It has a larger die, more transistors, more shading units, more TMUs, and dramatically more memory bandwidth. Its FP32 output is 22% higher, and it does so while drawing 30% less power. The only recorded head-to-head benchmark does not favor it, but that single test does not capture memory-bound or sustained workloads. For gaming, texture-heavy rendering, or any task that benefits from GDDR5 bandwidth, the 940MX is the stronger choice. Its Vulkan support is also recorded at 4749, giving it a modern API data point that the 930A lacks.

The 930A’s victory in the head-to-head is real but narrow. The 940MX’s architectural advantages are broad and measurable. The verdict is simple: choose the 930A if OpenCL compute scores are the priority, and choose the 940MX if you need balanced performance, lower power draw, and higher memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930A | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

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

| Chip | GM108 | GM107 |

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

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 928 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.58 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.7 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 23 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | None | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5317 | 4939 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not recorded | 4749 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 31 | 28 |