NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M leads with an average score of 5284, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 sits at 4684. The 940M also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile, at 31 versus the P400's 27.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce 940M is substantially ahead, scoring 6018 compared to the Quadro P400's 4249. That is a 41.6% delta in favor of the 940M.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P400 takes that test, scoring 5119 versus the GeForce 940M's 4549, a delta of -11.1% when measured from the 940M's perspective.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory, but the 940M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the P400 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The P400's memory clock is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 940M.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GeForce 940M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module. The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W, is a single-slot card, and comes with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Neither uses power connectors.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The Quadro P400 was released on 2017-02-06, while the GeForce 940M was released on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life products now.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the GeForce 940M is the stronger compute performer in OpenCL, while the Quadro P400 wins in Vulkan. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the 940M offers a massive 41.6% advantage. Its average score of 5284 also places it higher in the overall GPU hierarchy, at the 31st percentile.

However, the Quadro P400 is not without reason to exist. Its Vulkan score of 5119 beats the 940M's 4549 by a meaningful margin, and it does so with a far lower 30 W TDP. For environments where power efficiency and a compact single-slot form factor matter, the P400 is the sensible pick. The 940M, with its 75 W TDP and MXM module design, targets a different niche, one tied to portable or modular systems.

Pick the GeForce 940M if OpenCL compute is the priority and the higher power draw is acceptable. Pick the Quadro P400 if Vulkan workloads dominate and the 30 W TDP, single-slot profile, and GDDR5 memory are more attractive. Both are end-of-life parts, so the choice hinges entirely on workload and physical constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a study in contrast. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 940M posts 6018 against the Quadro P400's 4249, a 41.6% lead. This is the 940M's strongest showing, and it aligns with its larger shader array: 512 shading units versus 256 on the P400. The 940M also has higher texture and pixel rates, with 35.14 GTexel/s and 17.57 GPixel/s, respectively. The P400 counters with 20.03 GTexel/s and 20.03 GPixel/s, the latter being a slight edge.

The Vulkan test flips the script. The Quadro P400 scores 5119, beating the 940M's 4549 by 11.1%. This suggests that the P400's Pascal architecture handles Vulkan's lower-level API more efficiently, despite having half the shading units. The P400's GDDR5 memory, with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s on the 940M, likely plays a role in this reversal, as does its higher base clock of 1228 MHz versus 1020 MHz on the 940M.

Looking at the rival landscape, the 940M's nearest competitors include the GeForce GTX 980M (avg 5308, delta -0.4%), GeForce 930A (avg 5317, delta -0.6%), and GeForce 840M (avg 5322, delta -0.7%). The 940M's 5284 average is within a percentage point of these, showing it sits in a tight cluster. The GeForce GTX 760M (avg 5236, delta 0.9%) trails slightly. The Quadro P400's rivals are a mixed bag: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (avg 4657, delta 0.6%) and Radeon R5 M320 (avg 4657, delta 0.6%) are close, while the Radeon R8 M445DX (avg 4727, delta -0.9%) and GeForce GTX 970M (avg 4628, delta 1.2%) frame the P400's position. The P400's 4684 average places it just below the 940M's nearest group, reinforcing the 940M's overall compute edge.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every core specification. The GeForce 940M uses a GM107 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro P400 uses a GP107 chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung. This process shrink is reflected in transistor density: the 940M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die (12.6M / mm²), while the P400 crams 3,300 million transistors onto a smaller 132 mm² die (25.0M / mm²).

Clock speeds favor the P400. Its base clock is 1228 MHz with a boost of 1252 MHz, versus 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost on the 940M. The memory clocks also differ: the P400 runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 940M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The memory configuration is a key differentiator. Both have 2 GB, but the 940M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The P400 uses GDDR5 with the same 64-bit bus but achieves 32.06 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth.

Compute resources are starkly different. The 940M has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, while the P400 has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. This translates into a major FP32 gap: the 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS on the P400. The P400 does list FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which the 940M does not report.

Pixel and texture rates follow suit. The 940M hits 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s, while the P400 posts 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s. The P400's higher pixel rate is notable given its lower compute count.

Form factor and interface differ completely. The 940M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The P400 is a single-slot card, 150 mm (5.9 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, using PCIe 3.0 x16 and offering 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The P400 has a suggested PSU of 200 W; the 940M has none listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is generational. The GeForce 940M is built on Maxwell, NVIDIA's architecture from the GeForce 900M generation. The Quadro P400 is built on Pascal, from the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. This is not just a naming difference; it reflects a fundamental shift in how the GPUs handle workloads.

The 940M's Maxwell design, on a 28 nm process, relies on a higher shader count to achieve its compute lead. With 512 shading units, it brute-forces OpenCL performance, as seen in its 41.6% advantage over the P400. The architecture is older, but it is paired with a wider compute array that pays off in raw FP32 throughput.

The P400's Pascal architecture, on a 14 nm process, is more efficient per transistor. It uses half the shading units (256) but compensates with higher clocks and GDDR5 memory. The result is a card that wins in Vulkan, an API that rewards efficient command processing and memory bandwidth. The P400's memory bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s is more than double the 940M's 14.40 GB/s, which likely explains its Vulkan edge despite the compute deficit.

There are also feature-level differences. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and lists FP16 capability, while the 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no FP16 entry. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the higher DirectX feature level on the P400 suggests better support for modern rendering features.

The die size and transistor story is instructive. The P400 packs 3,300 million transistors onto 132 mm², a density of 25.0M / mm², versus the 940M's 1,870 million on 148 mm² at 12.6M / mm². This is a direct result of the 14 nm process, and it explains how the P400 achieves its efficiency: a 30 W TDP versus 75 W on the 940M.

In practical terms, the 940M is the compute brute, while the P400 is the efficiency-focused card with a modern architecture. The Pascal generation brings better memory handling and API support, but it does not overcome the 940M's sheer shader count in OpenCL. For users on older APIs, the 940M is the clear choice; for Vulkan-centric or power-constrained systems, the P400 is the one to pick.