NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile NVIDIA parts, and the use-case division is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is a low-power entry point for light multimedia and legacy DirectX workloads, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is a professional-grade compute and rendering solution. Across the two recorded head-to-head benchmark tests, the Quadro M3000M wins both outright. The GeForce 940M does not win a single comparative test in the database. That does not mean the 940M has no role; its value lies in its modest power envelope and compatibility with older API levels, not in raw throughput.

The Quadro M3000M dominates in every measurable compute and graphics scenario in this comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 16,646 against the 940M's 6,018, a delta of 63.8% in favor of the Quadro. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even larger: 16,668 versus 4,549, a 72.7% advantage. These are not marginal differences; the Quadro delivers roughly 2.5 to 3.5 times the performance depending on the API. For any workload that stresses the GPU, such as 3D modeling, simulation, or GPU-accelerated compute, the M3000M is the only viable choice between the two.

The GeForce 940M, conversely, is suited to tasks where the Quadro's additional power is unnecessary or where the host system cannot feed a faster GPU. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus provide 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for basic desktop composition, video playback, and older DirectX titles. The 940M's 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units are a fraction of the Quadro's resources, but they are enough for casual use. The database shows the 940M sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, slightly above the Quadro's 27th percentile, but that percentile ranking reflects the entire benchmark suite, not the head-to-head tests where the Quadro is decisively ahead.

For professional users, the Quadro M3000M's advantage in Vulkan is particularly relevant. Vulkan is a low-overhead API used in modern game engines and compute frameworks; a 72.7% lead in that test indicates the Quadro can handle contemporary graphics workloads with far greater headroom. The OpenCL result reinforces this: OpenCL is the standard for heterogeneous computing, and the Quadro's 63.8% lead confirms its suitability for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, physics simulation, and data processing. No use case in the recorded data favors the GeForce 940M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same foundry and process node: TSMC's 28 nm manufacturing process. Both are NVIDIA designs, but they belong to different architectural generations within the Maxwell family. The GeForce 940M is based on the original Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0, implemented in the GM204 chip, which packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the Quadro: 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm², reflecting a more complex and capable design.

The chip differences translate into massive resource disparities. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, double the 940M's 512. It also has twice the texture mapping units (64 versus 32) and twice the raster operations units (32 versus 16). The Quadro's memory subsystem is fundamentally different: it uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is an 11-fold difference in memory bandwidth, a critical factor for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The GeForce 940M runs at a higher base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost of 1098 MHz, while the Quadro M3000M operates at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro's lower clocks are offset by its wider architecture and larger memory interface. The 940M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro's higher memory clock, combined with its wider bus, explains its massive bandwidth advantage.

Architecturally, the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 940M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro's Maxwell 2.0 architecture includes features that the original Maxwell lacks, such as improved geometry processing and better tessellation performance, which are not directly visible in the benchmark scores but affect real-world rendering quality. The Quadro also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the 940M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, which may limit its bandwidth to the host system in some configurations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both are decisive wins for the Quadro M3000M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 16,646 against the 940M's 6,018. The delta is 63.8% in the Quadro's favor. This is not a close contest; the Quadro delivers more than two and a half times the OpenCL performance. OpenCL is a proxy for general-purpose GPU compute, including tasks like video encoding, image processing, and scientific simulations. The Quadro's 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the 940M's 1,124.4 GFLOPS, explains this gap. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s versus 17.57 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s), all of which feed into compute performance.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens further. The Quadro scores 16,668, while the 940M scores 4,549, a 72.7% delta. Vulkan is a low-level API that exposes the GPU's hardware capabilities more directly than OpenCL. The Quadro's architectural advantages, particularly its larger shading unit count and memory bandwidth, become even more pronounced in this test. The 940M's boost clock of 1098 MHz cannot compensate for its narrow 64-bit memory bus and half the shading units. The Vulkan result is the strongest evidence in the database for the Quadro's superiority in modern graphics workloads.

The nearest rival data provides context. The GeForce 940M's average benchmark score is 5,284, placing it within 0.4% of the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308), 0.6% of the GeForce 930A (5,317), 0.7% of the GeForce 840M (5,322), and 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 760M (5,236). These are all near-identical scores, indicating that the 940M is a mid-pack mobile GPU. The Quadro M3000M's average score is 4,621, which is 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628), 0.8% below both the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (both 4,657), and 1% above the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577). The Quadro's average score is lower than the 940M's, but that average includes Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 tests where the Quadro's scores are surprisingly low (98, 26, 42, and 23 respectively). The head-to-head Vulkan and OpenCL results are the more reliable indicators of raw compute capability, and they overwhelmingly favor the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors, while the Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million. Die size is 148 mm² for the 940M and 398 mm² for the Quadro. The 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, while the Quadro is in the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

Memory specifications diverge sharply. The 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is 11-fold.

Compute resources also differ by a factor of two or more. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s for the 940M versus 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds are the one area where the 940M leads. Its base clock is 1020 MHz and boost clock is 1098 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Both have a TDP of 75 W and use MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The 940M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are end-of-life products with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 940M was released on 2015-03-12, and the Quadro on 2015-08-17. The 940M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and successor is GeForce 10 Mobile; the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and successor is Quadro Pascal-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce 940M scores 4,549, a 72.7% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The GeForce 940M has 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro M3000M has 160.4 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

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

A: The GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5,284, and the Quadro M3000M has an average score of 4,621. The 940M ranks at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro ranks at the 27th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, exactly double the GeForce 940M's 512. The Quadro also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the 940M.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The GeForce 940M was released in March 2015, and the Quadro M3000M was released in August 2015.