NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce 940M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M in the recorded benchmark data?

A: In the only head-to-head benchmark available (Geekbench OpenCL), the 940M scores 6018 versus 4855 for the GTX 560M. This gives the 940M a 24% advantage in that test.

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

A: The 940M has an average benchmark score of 5284, while the GTX 560M has an average score of 4855. The 940M also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 31, compared to 28 for the GTX 560M.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 560M has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 60.00 GB/s, using a 192-bit bus with GDDR5 memory. The 940M has 14.40 GB/s bandwidth from a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for these two chips?

A: The 940M has 512 shading units, while the GTX 560M has 192 shading units. The 940M also has the same number of texture mapping units (32 each) but fewer ROPs (16 versus 24 for the GTX 560M).

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each GPU?

A: The 940M delivers 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. The GTX 560M delivers 6.200 GPixel/s and 24.80 GTexel/s. The 940M is ahead in both metrics.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 940M additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560M has no recorded Vulkan support in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear choice for most scenarios: the NVIDIA GeForce 940M. It wins the only direct head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 24% margin, holds a higher average benchmark score (5284 versus 4855), and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs (31 versus 28). The 940M also delivers superior pixel and texture rates, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and more than double the shading units.

The GTX 560M is not without its own strengths. Its memory subsystem is substantially wider and faster: 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth on a 192-bit GDDR5 interface, compared to 14.40 GB/s on a 64-bit DDR3 bus for the 940M. It also has 24 ROPs, which is 50% more than the 940M's 16. For workloads that are heavily memory-bound or require high fill rates at low resolutions, the GTX 560M could hold an edge.

However, the recorded scores suggest the 940M is the better overall performer. Its 24% win in OpenCL is substantial, and its other compute metrics (FP32 at 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS) reinforce that lead. The GTX 560M is a Fermi-generation part with an older architecture, while the 940M uses Maxwell. The data indicates the 940M is the safer pick for general compute and modern application support, especially given Vulkan support on the 940M and none on the GTX 560M.

The GTX 560M might be preferable in narrow cases where memory bandwidth is the primary constraint, but the overall benchmark picture favors the 940M in nearly every measurable category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the 940M scored 6018 against the GTX 560M's 4855. The delta is 24% in favor of the 940M. This is a decisive margin, not a marginal edge.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 940M averages 5284 across its recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the GTX 560M averages 4855 from its single OpenCL result. The gap is roughly 429 points, or about 8.8% in the 940M's favor.

Looking at the rivals listed in the database, the 940M's average score of 5284 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308, a delta of -0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, delta of -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, delta of -0.7%). It is also slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, delta of 0.9%). This means the 940M performs within a narrow band of those four GPUs, all within roughly 1% of each other.

The GTX 560M's average score of 4855 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844, delta of 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, delta of -0.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, delta of -0.8%). The database also lists the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB as a rival for the GTX 560M, with a score of 4901 and a delta of -0.9%, meaning the RTX 5060 Ti scores slightly higher in that comparison set.

The 940M wins the head-to-head count by 1 to 0. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the GTX 560M outperforms the 940M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The 940M uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the GTX 560M uses a 40 nm node, also from TSMC. The 940M has a smaller die size at 148 mm² versus 238 mm² for the GTX 560M, yet it packs more transistors: 1,870 million versus 1,170 million. This yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm² for the 940M, compared to 4.9 million per mm² for the GTX 560M.

Clock speeds differ structurally. The 940M has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1098 MHz. The GTX 560M has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks also differ: the 940M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 560M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major divergence. The 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560M has a clear advantage in raw memory throughput.

Compute resources also differ sharply. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The 940M has more shading units and equal TMUs, but the GTX 560M has more ROPs.

Fill rates and compute throughput reflect these differences. The 940M achieves 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 1,124.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 560M achieves 6.200 GPixel/s and 24.80 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 595.2 GFLOPS. The 940M leads in all three metrics.

Both GPUs are rated at 75 W TDP, use an MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." Both are end-of-life products. The 940M was released later, on 2015-03-12, while the GTX 560M came out on 2011-05-29. The 940M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The GTX 560M's predecessor is the GeForce 400M and its successor is the GeForce 600M.

Architecture Differences

The 940M is based on the GM107 chip, using the Maxwell architecture. The GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip, built on Fermi 2.0. These are two different architectural generations with distinct design philosophies.

The 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, while the GTX 560M belongs to the GeForce 500M generation. The manufacturing process differs: 28 nm for Maxwell versus 40 nm for Fermi 2.0. This process shrink allowed the 940M to pack more transistors (1,870 million) into a smaller die (148 mm²), resulting in a density of 12.6M per mm². The GTX 560M, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, with a density of just 4.9M per mm².

The shader architecture is markedly different. The 940M has 512 shading units, while the GTX 560M has 192. This is a 2.67x difference in raw shader count. Both have 32 TMUs, but the GTX 560M has 24 ROPs versus 16 on the 940M. The 940M's pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s) is nearly triple that of the GTX 560M (6.200 GPixel/s), despite having fewer ROPs, which points to more efficient per-clock execution in Maxwell.

Memory architecture differs in both type and width. The 940M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 560M uses GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The GDDR5 memory operates at a higher effective data rate (2.5 Gbps versus 1800 Mbps), but the larger bus width is the dominant factor: the GTX 560M's 60.00 GB/s bandwidth is over 4 times the 940M's 14.40 GB/s.

API support shows a key difference. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 940M adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 560M has no recorded Vulkan capability. This matters for modern applications that leverage Vulkan for lower overhead and better multi-threading.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are rated at 75 W TDP and use MXM modules, indicating they were designed for notebook form factors. The release dates are far apart: the GTX 560M launched in 2011, the 940M in 2015. Both are end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The 940M wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS is nearly double the GTX 560M's 595.2 GFLOPS. The OpenCL benchmark result confirms this: 6018 versus 4855, a 24% advantage. For tasks like general-purpose GPU computing, photo editing filters, or any workload that uses OpenCL, the 940M is the stronger part.

The 940M also wins on pixel and texture throughput. Its pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s is roughly 2.8 times the GTX 560M's 6.200 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s is about 42% higher than the GTX 560M's 24.80 GTexel/s. For rendering scenes with high geometric complexity and heavy texturing, the 940M delivers more raw fill capability.

The 940M has a clear advantage in API support. Vulkan 1.4 is available on the 940M but not on the GTX 560M. DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6 are present on both, so compatibility with those APIs is equal. The 940M also has a higher average benchmark score (5284 versus 4855) and a higher percentile rank (31 versus 28).

The GTX 560M wins in memory bandwidth. Its 60.00 GB/s is more than 4 times the 940M's 14.40 GB/s. This is a substantial margin. For workloads that are memory-latency-sensitive or that stream large data sets, such as high-resolution texture loading or certain compute kernels that repeatedly access memory, the GTX 560M could perform better despite its lower compute throughput.

The GTX 560M also has more ROPs (24 versus 16), which can help with fill-rate-bound scenarios at lower resolutions where the pixel rate is not the limiting factor. However, the recorded pixel rate for the 940M is much higher, so this advantage is theoretical rather than demonstrated in the data.

In terms of transistor count and density, the 940M is clearly the more advanced design. It uses a smaller process node, packs more transistors, and achieves higher performance per watt in compute tasks. The GTX 560M's older Fermi architecture and larger die limit its efficiency.

For end users, the data suggests the 940M is the better all-around GPU for modern workloads. The GTX 560M retains a niche for memory-bandwidth-bound applications, but the 940M wins the recorded benchmarks and offers broader API support.