NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two GPUs almost evenly, with each claiming one victory in the two head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M takes the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, posting a score of 6018 against the 940MX’s 4939, a margin of 21.8% in its favor. This makes the 940M the stronger choice for compute-oriented workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as general-purpose GPU tasks and certain content creation pipelines. Its lead in this test is substantial, not a marginal edge, and it reflects a raw throughput advantage that shows up in the recorded numbers.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, by contrast, wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 4749 against the 940M’s 4549, a delta of 4.2% in its favor. Vulkan-based applications, including modern game titles and some rendering engines, tend to favor this GPU. The margin is smaller than the 940M’s OpenCL win, but it is still a clear reversal of positions. For users prioritizing Vulkan workloads, the 940MX is the better option based on the data. The split is clean: the 940M dominates in OpenCL, the 940MX edges ahead in Vulkan.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this divergence. The 940M holds an average score of 5284, placing it in the 31st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the 940MX averages 4844 points, sitting in the 28th percentile. The 940M’s higher aggregate suggests it is slightly better positioned across mixed workloads, but the gap narrows when isolating the two tests individually. The 940M’s nearest rival cluster shows an average score of 5308 for the GTX 980M, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the 940M trails that high-end card by less than half a percent in average terms. The 940MX’s closest competitor is the GTX 560M at 4855, a -0.2% delta, placing the two almost neck-and-neck in average performance terms.

In practice, the data indicates the 940M is the pick for OpenCL-centric tasks and slightly better in overall average scores, while the 940MX is the pick for Vulkan-specific applications. Neither GPU sweeps the field; each has a distinct arena where it holds the advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same underlying silicon: the GM107 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die and a transistor density of 12.6M per square millimeter. The Maxwell architecture is identical in both, and both belong to the GeForce GeForce 900M generation generation. They also share the same shading unit count at 512 shading units, the same 32 texture mapping units, and the same 2 GB memory size with a 64 bit bus width. The core counts do not differ, so architectural differences come down to how the chip is configured and clocked.

The most significant divergence lies in memory type and clock speeds. The 940M operates with DDR3 memory at a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1098 MHz, and a memory clock of 900 MHz, yielding 1800 Mbps effective. Its memory bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s, a modest figure constrained by DDR3 and the narrow bus width. The 940MX switches to GDDR5 memory, running at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, raising bandwidth to 40.10 GB/s, nearly three times the 940M’s throughput. This memory bandwidth advantage is the 940MX’s key architectural edge, directly benefiting memory-bound workloads.

Clock speeds, however, favor the 940M. Its base clock is 795 MHz for the 940MX and 1020 MHz for the 940M, and the boost clock is 861 MHz for the 940MX versus 1098 MHz for the 940M. This higher clocking translates into higher compute rates: the 940M delivers a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s, while the 940MX falls to 6.888 GPixel/s and 27.55 GTexel/s respectively. The 940M also leads in FP32 throughput at 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus the 940MX’s 881.7 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the 940M achieves this with 16 ROPs, while the 940MX has only 8 ROPs, halving its pixel throughput.

Power consumption reverses the picture. The 940M is rated at 75 W TDP, while the 940MX draws only 23 W. The 940MX’s lower power draw comes at the cost of clock speeds and pixel rate, but it gains a significant memory bandwidth advantage. The bus interface also differs: the 940M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and display outputs are portable device dependent for both. The 940MX also has a later release date, June 2016, versus March 2015 for the 940M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests show a clear trade-off. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 940M wins with a score of 6018 against the 940MX’s 4939, a delta of 21.8%. This is a substantial lead, and it aligns with the 940M’s higher FP32 throughput and pixel rate. The 940MX’s GDDR5 memory bandwidth, which is nearly triple the 940M’s, does not compensate for its lower compute clocks in this OpenCL test. The 940M’s average score of 5284 sits well above its OpenCL score, indicating it tends to perform closer to its average in compute tasks, while the 940MX’s OpenCL score of 4939 is also below its average of 4844, showing a consistent pattern of underperformance in this test relative to its own average.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 940MX reverses the result, scoring 4749 against the 940M’s 4549, a delta of 4.2%. This is a narrower margin, and it suggests the 940MX memory bandwidth helps in Vulkan workloads where memory access patterns favor faster bandwidth over raw compute. The 940M Vulkan score of 4549 is below its average of 5284, indicating Vulkan is not its strong suit, while the 940MX Vulkan score of 4749 is close to its average 4844, meaning it performs near its typical level in Vulkan.

The head-to-head delta of 21.8% in OpenCL is the largest single gap between the two. The 4.2% Vulkan delta is much smaller. This asymmetry means the 940M’s win is decisive, the 940MX’s win is more marginal. The data shows no tie: one GPU is clearly better in compute, the other narrowly better in Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several fields. Clock speeds: the 940M has a base clock of 1020 MHz and boost of 1098 MHz; the 940MX has 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. Memory clock shows 900 MHz for the 940M (1800 Mbps effective) and the 940MX at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory type differs: DDR3 versus GDDR5. Memory bandwidth is 14. 40 GB/s for the 940M, 40.10 GB/s for the 940MX. ROPs are 16 for the 940M, 8 for the 940MX. Pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 27. 55 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 881.7 GFLOPS. TDP is 75 W versus 23 W. Bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Release date is 2015-03-12 for the 940M and 2016-06-27 for the 940MX. All other fields, including shading units, TMUs, memory size, bus width, process node, transistor count, die size, and APIs are identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 on both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M. Its FP32 throughput is 1,124.4 GFLOPS against the 940MX’s 881.7 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 17. 57 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s.

Q: Why does the 940MX win in Vulkan despite lower clocks?

A: The 940MX uses GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s, nearly triple the 940M’s 14.40 GB/s. In Vulkan workloads, this higher bandwidth outweighs the 940M’s higher clock speeds, leading to a 4.2% score advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare overall GPUs?

A: The 940M averages 5284, putting it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the 940MX averages 4844 points, in the 28th percentile. The 940M is slightly ahead in aggregate terms.

Q: Are they based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM107 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die in Maxwell architecture. They differ in clock speeds, memory type, ROPs, TDP, and bus interface.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient per watt?

A: The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W versus the 940M’s 75 W, making the 940MX significantly less power-hungry, though it trades away compute performance to achieve this lower draw.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The 940M launched on 2015-03-12, while the 940MX followed on 2016-06-27. Both are end-of-life products, with the 940M being earlier.

Q: Do they support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, identical across both GPUs in the 900M generation.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The 940MX, with 40.10 GB/s, versus the 940M’s 14.40 GB/s, a difference driven by GDDR5 memory type; both have 2 GB capacity and a 64-bit bus width.

Q: How do their pixel rates compare in practice?

A: The 940M’s pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s, more than double the 940MX’s 6.888 GPixel/s, due to 16 ROPs on the 940M versus 8 ROPs on the 940MX.

Q: What are the closest rivals by average score?

A: For the 940M, the nearest rival is the GTX 980M at 5308 with a -0.4% delta; for the 940MX, the GTX 560M at 4855 with a -0.2% delta, showing both GPUs sit close to their respective peers.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice based on workload. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the superior option for OpenCL compute tasks, holding a 21.8% lead over the 940MX in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test. Its higher FP32 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate, along with its higher clock speeds, make it the better performer for raw compute-heavy applications. It also posts a higher average benchmark score of 5284 versus the 940MX’s 4844, placing it in a higher percentile. Users who run OpenCL-based tools, simulations, or any workload that leverages general compute should select the 940M.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, however, is the better choice for Vulkan-based workloads. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4749 beats the 940M’s 4549 by 4.2%, and its significantly higher memory bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s gives it an edge in memory-intensive rendering scenarios. The 940MX also draws only 23 W against the 940M’s 75 W, making it a more power-efficient alternative for laptops where thermal headroom is limited. For users prioritizing Vulkan games or Vulkan-accelerated applications, the 940MX is the winner.

In summary, the 940M wins on compute performance and overall average scores, the 940MX wins on memory bandwidth, Vulkan performance, and power efficiency. Neither is a universal champion, and the choice depends entirely on whether the target workload is OpenCL-heavy or Vulkan-heavy. The recorded benchmark data shows no clear overall winner, only a clear division of strengths.