NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, and the GTX 760M wins both. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 760M scores 5604 against the 940MX's 4939. That is a 13.5% advantage, a substantial gap for a mobile GPU comparison. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 760M scores 4868 while the 940MX scores 4749, a narrower 2.5% lead. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for the GTX 760M is 5236, while the 940MX averages 4844. This places the GTX 760M in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the 940MX sits at the 28th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the GTX 760M's average score of 5236 puts it slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, a 0.5% delta) and slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284, a -0.9% delta). The GTX 980M sits marginally higher at 5308 (-1.3% delta), while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails at 5161 (1.5% delta). For the 940MX, its 4844 average is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, -0.5% delta). The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 (-1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, an outlier in this comparison, scores 4791 (1.1% delta). These numbers show that the GTX 760M competes in a higher performance tier than the 940MX, as even the 940MX's closest rivals are generally lower-scoring than the GTX 760M's closest rivals.

The two GPUs share a nearly identical instruction set in terms of API support, both reaching DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs slightly: the GTX 760M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4. This does not appear to translate into a benchmark advantage, as the GTX 760M still wins the Vulkan test.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins in both recorded benchmark categories, so the data does not show any test where the 940MX takes a lead. In OpenCL, the 13.5% delta is the clearest indicator of the GTX 760M's dominance. This test typically stresses raw compute throughput, and the GTX 760M's larger shading unit count and higher texture and pixel rates align with that result. The Vulkan test, which often reflects driver overhead and geometry handling, shows a much smaller 2.5% gap, suggesting the 940MX's architecture is relatively more competitive in that workload despite the overall loss.

For use-case analysis, the GTX 760M is the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, where its 1,104.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput outpaces the 940MX's 881.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 760M also delivers higher pixel and texture rates: 11.50 GPixel/s and 46.02 GTexel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s and 27.55 GTexel/s for the 940MX. These figures suggest the GTX 760M should handle higher resolutions and more texture-heavy scenes better. The 940MX, with its lower TDP of 23 W against the GTX 760M's 55 W, would be preferable in power-constrained environments, though the database does not record a specific power efficiency benchmark to quantify that trade-off.

In terms of memory, both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 760M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s. The GTX 760M's memory bandwidth advantage is significant, which typically benefits texture streaming and high-resolution framebuffers. The 940MX's only clear wins are in clock speed (795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost versus 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost) and its newer release date (2016-06-27 versus 2013-05-29), but higher clocks do not overcome the GTX 760M's other advantages in the recorded benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip based on Kepler, while the 940MX uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, so the node is identical. The transistor counts differ notably: the GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die, giving a higher density of 12.6M per mm². This means the Maxwell chip achieves better density despite having fewer transistors overall.

The execution resources differ substantially. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 760M therefore has 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. This explains the large gap in pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute also reflects this: 1,104.4 GFLOPS against 881.7 GFLOPS, a 25% advantage for the GTX 760M.

Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support in the recorded data. The memory subsystem differs in bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit) and bandwidth (64.13 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s), but both use 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 760M's memory clock is listed at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the 940MX runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The 940MX's higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but not enough to match the GTX 760M's total bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs: the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This could matter for data transfer in some workloads, though the benchmark results do not isolate this effect. Both cards are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The production status for both is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK106S (GTX 760M) versus GM107 (940MX)
• Architecture: Kepler versus Maxwell
• Generation: GeForce 700M versus GeForce 900M
• Transistors: 2,540 million versus 1,870 million
• Die size: 221 mm² versus 148 mm²
• Transistor density: 11.5M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: 628 MHz versus 795 MHz
• Boost clock: 719 MHz versus 861 MHz
• Memory clock: 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 64.13 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 512
• TMUs: 64 versus 32
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 11.50 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 46.02 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 881.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W versus 23 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Vulkan version: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Release date: 2013-05-29 versus 2016-06-27
• Predecessor: GeForce 600M versus GeForce 800M
• Successor: GeForce 800M versus GeForce 10 Mobile

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (NVIDIA), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (2 GB), memory type (GDDR5), slot width (MXM Module), power connectors (none), display outputs, DirectX support (12 (11_0)), OpenGL support (4.6), and production status (end-of-life). Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has an average benchmark score of 5236, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844. The GTX 760M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 31% versus 28%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 760M scores 5604 against the 940MX's 4939, a 13.5% delta in favor of the GTX 760M.

Q: Does the 940MX win any benchmark category?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the GTX 760M wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the GTX 760M and 0 for the 940MX.

Q: What explains the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760M uses a 128-bit memory bus with a 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses a 64-bit bus with a 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. Although the 940MX runs its memory at a higher effective speed (5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps), the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, while the 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The 940MX draws less power, making it more suitable for lower-power laptops, but the GTX 760M delivers higher performance in every recorded benchmark.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture?

A: No. The GTX 760M is based on Kepler (chip GK106S), while the 940MX is based on Maxwell (chip GM107). Both use the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the GTX 760M has more transistors (2,540 million versus 1,870 million) and a larger die (221 mm² versus 148 mm²).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX in every recorded benchmark. The GTX 760M leads by 13.5% in OpenCL and 2.5% in Vulkan, and its average score of 5236 sits well above the 940MX's 4844. This is consistent with the specification sheet, where the GTX 760M has more shading units, double the TMUs and ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, and more than 50% greater memory bandwidth. The 940MX's advantages are limited to lower power consumption (23 W versus 55 W), higher clock speeds, and a newer release date, but none of these translate into a benchmark win.

For users prioritizing raw compute and graphics performance, the GTX 760M is the clear pick from the recorded data. Its 13.5% OpenCL lead suggests it handles compute workloads substantially better, and its 64.13 GB/s memory bandwidth is better suited to texture-heavy applications. The 940MX would be the choice only in scenarios where power draw is the primary concern, as its 23 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 760M's 55 W. However, the database does not record any power efficiency benchmark, so this remains a qualitative assessment. Given that both are end-of-life products, the decision comes down to whether the user needs the GTX 760M's performance or the 940MX's lower power envelope. The benchmark evidence points to the GTX 760M for any performance-sensitive application.