NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the faster mobile GPU in this comparison, decisively winning both head-to-head benchmark matchups against the GeForce 940M. The GTX 765M leads by 19.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and by a massive 47.6% in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks. However, the 940M holds its own in the broader landscape, with a similar average benchmark score that places it in the same performance tier, suggesting its strengths lie in efficiency and compatibility rather than raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a clear split in capabilities. The GTX 765M is the outright winner in raw compute performance. It secures victory in both available benchmark comparisons, with a particularly dominant performance in Vulkan where it scores 6714 points versus the 940M’s 4549 points, a 47.6% advantage. This indicates that the older Kepler-based chip is substantially better at handling modern, low-level graphics API workloads. In OpenCL, the GTX 765M also takes the lead with a score of 7176 against 6018, a 19.2% margin, showing its superiority in general-purpose compute tasks.

The GeForce 940M, while losing the direct comparisons, is not a poor performer overall. Its average benchmark score of 5284 is only 3.9% lower than the GTX 765M’s 5501. This suggests the 940M is a more balanced, all-around chip in the wider GPU ecosystem. Its edge comes in a different form: it achieves near-parity in average performance while likely offering better architectural efficiency per clock. The 940M’s higher base clock of 1020 MHz (versus 797 MHz) and boost clock of 1098 MHz (versus 863 MHz) indicate it can sustain higher frequencies, which can be advantageous in short, bursty workloads that do not scale perfectly with core count. The win count is 2-0 in favor of the GTX 765M, but the 940M’s closer average scores show it is a competent alternative for less demanding applications.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs represent distinct design philosophies from NVIDIA. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip based on the Kepler architecture, while the 940M uses the GM107 chip from the Maxwell architecture. Both are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon is quite different. Kepler is the earlier design, featuring a larger die size of 221 mm² and a higher transistor count of 2,540 million. Maxwell, on the other hand, is a more refined and denser design, with a smaller die of 148 mm² and 1,870 million transistors, resulting in a higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm² compared to Kepler’s 11.5M / mm².

The core configurations are where the biggest performance differences emerge. The GTX 765M packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. This is a significantly wider design. The 940M is narrower, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the 940M’s higher clocks help it close the gap in certain calculations. For instance, the 940M achieves a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTX 765M’s 13.81 GPixel/s, due to its higher boost clock. However, the GTX 765M’s extra TMUs give it a massive lead in texture rate: 55.23 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s.

Memory is another fundamental split. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a much narrower 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 4.5x difference in memory throughput, which heavily impacts the GTX 765M’s ability to feed its wider core configuration with data. The 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, though the older chip still outperforms it in the Vulkan benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head tests provide a clear, quantifiable picture of the performance gap. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the GTX 765M scoring 7176 against the 940M’s 6018. This 19.2% advantage is substantial and reflects the Kepler chip’s superior raw compute power, driven by its 768 shading units and much higher memory bandwidth. The 940M’s higher clock speed of 1098 MHz cannot compensate for having 33% fewer shading units and a fraction of the bandwidth.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is where the gap becomes a chasm. The GTX 765M scores 6714, while the 940M only manages 4549. This is a 47.6% difference in favor of the GTX 765M. This result is surprising given the 940M’s newer architecture and higher Vulkan API version support. It suggests that the GTX 765M’s hardware design, with its wider memory bus and more TMUs, is far better equipped to handle the draw calls and memory access patterns typical of Vulkan workloads. The 940M’s narrow 64-bit memory bus is a severe bottleneck in this test, significantly limiting its performance despite its clock speed advantage.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 765M’s average benchmark score of 5501 puts it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, which scores 5508, a negligible 0.1% difference. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is also close at 5483. The 940M, with an average score of 5284, sits in the 31st percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which scores 5308, a 0.4% difference. This data shows that while the GTX 765M wins the direct comparison, both GPUs are clustered in a similar performance band in the broader market, with the GTX 765M being slightly but consistently ahead.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for performance: pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. It wins every single head-to-head benchmark available, and its average score of 5501 is higher than the 940M’s 5284. The GTX 765M’s superior memory bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s and its larger core configuration (768 shading units vs 512) make it the more capable processor for demanding tasks. Its 47.6% lead in Vulkan is a decisive indicator for modern gaming or compute applications that leverage this API.

The GeForce 940M is not without merit, but its strengths are more subtle. It is a more modern design with a higher transistor density, which may translate to better power characteristics per unit of work, though both have a 75 W TDP. Its higher boost clock of 1098 MHz allows it to reach a higher pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s, which could be beneficial in specific, fill-rate-limited scenarios. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. The 940M is a suitable choice only if the specific workload is not memory-bandwidth-bound and benefits more from the higher clocks, but the data shows that even in the OpenCL test, which is more clock-sensitive, the GTX 765M prevails by 19.2%.

For a user looking at the benchmark database, the verdict is clear: the GTX 765M is the superior GPU. The 940M is a viable, lower-performing alternative that offers a more modern feature set in terms of API support but fails to compete on raw performance. The choice hinges on whether you need the best possible performance (GTX 765M) or are willing to accept lower scores for a newer architecture (940M), with the caveat that the newer architecture does not win any tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is significantly faster, scoring 6714 points compared to the GeForce 940M’s 4549 points, a 47.6% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 765M has an average benchmark score of 5501, while the 940M has 5284. The GTX 765M is ahead by approximately 4.1% in this aggregate metric.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type?

A: No. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The GeForce 940M has a higher boost clock of 1098 MHz, compared to the GTX 765M’s boost clock of 863 MHz.

Q: How does the GTX 765M’s average score compare to its nearest rival, the MX130?

A: The GTX 765M’s average score of 5501 is only 0.1% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce MX130’s score of 5508, making them statistically equivalent.

Q: What are the DirectX and OpenGL version support differences?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support, with the 940M supporting version 1.4 and the GTX 765M supporting version 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

This section highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | NVIDIA GeForce 940M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GK106 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | GeForce 900M |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | 2015-03-12 |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 863 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.81 GPixel/s | 17.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.23 GTexel/s | 35.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,325.6 GFLOPS | 1,124.4 GFLOPS |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5501 | 5284 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 7176 | 6018 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 6714 | 4549 |