NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile GPUs into clearly different roles. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M dominates every recorded head-to-head test, while the GeForce 940MX does not win a single comparison in the database. The GTX 980M is built for sustained, high-load graphics work, whereas the 940MX is better understood as an entry-level part that handles lighter tasks without breaking a sweat.

Looking at the recorded measurements, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 in Geekbench OpenCL and 17,703 in Geekbench Vulkan. The 940MX scores 4,939 and 4,749 in those same tests. That is not a close contest. The GTX 980M leads by 382.5% in OpenCL and 272.8% in Vulkan. The data strongly suggests the GTX 980M is the only one of the two suited for demanding graphical workloads, such as modern gaming or GPU-accelerated content creation.

The 940MX, by contrast, has no benchmark win in the head-to-head data. Its average benchmark score is 4,844, which places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 980M averages 5,308, sitting in the 31st percentile. While both are below the median, the GTX 980M still holds a clear advantage. The 940MX is best used for everyday visual tasks, light media playback, or basic productivity, where its lower power draw matters more than raw speed.

The use-case split is clear: the GTX 980M is for users who need real performance, the 940MX is for users who need a functional, low-power mobile GPU for non-intensive work. The benchmark wins all go to the GTX 980M, with no test where the 940MX comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a common manufacturer and process node, but little else. Both are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the 940MX uses the smaller GM107 chip with first-generation Maxwell. That difference in architecture generation matters. Maxwell 2.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the older Maxwell in the 940MX only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The transistor count tells a large part of the story. The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. That is a massive difference in raw silicon, which directly translates into far more compute hardware.

The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That is exactly three times the shading units and TMUs, and eight times the ROPs. The memory subsystem is also completely different. The GTX 980M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 40.10 GB/s. That is a four-fold difference in bus width and bandwidth.

Clocks also favor the GTX 980M. It runs at a base of 1038 MHz and a boost of 1127 MHz. The 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. The GTX 980M is faster in raw clock speed and has far more parallel hardware behind it. The 940MX does have one advantage: a 23 W TDP, while the GTX 980M has no listed TDP, but the architectural differences make the GTX 980M in a different class entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has just two direct head-to-head tests, and the GTX 980M wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 against the 940MX's 4,939. That is a delta of 382.5%, meaning the GTX 980M is nearly five times faster in this compute test. The differences in shading units, memory bandwidth, and clock speed all feed into this result. OpenCL is a synthetic compute workload, and the GTX 980M's triple shading unit count and 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth simply overwhelm the 940MX.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M scores 17,703 versus 4,749. That is a 272.8% lead. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the GTX 980M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (12_1) support likely plays a role in its efficiency here. The 940MX only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which means it lacks some of the newer features, but Vulkan still runs. The GTX 980M's 1,536 shading units and 64 ROPs simply process far more work per frame.

It is also worth looking at the average benchmark scores. The GTX 980M averages 5,308 across all recorded tests, while the 940MX averages 4,844. The GTX 980M is about 9.6% higher on average. However, the GTX 980M also has more benchmarks recorded: it has scores for 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute). The 940MX only has two recorded benchmarks. So the average is based on very different data sets, and the head-to-head tests are more reliable for comparison.

The biggest win for the GTX 980M is in OpenCL, where the 382.5% lead shows a massive gap in compute capability. The Vulkan win is also huge at 272.8%. No test shows the 940MX winning, and the lack of any close margin confirms the performance hierarchy.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the stronger GPU in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score, and sits at a higher percentile (31st versus the 940MX's 28th). The GTX 980M offers 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus the 940MX's 881.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus, versus the 940MX's 2 GB on a 64-bit bus. Any user who needs performance should pick the GTX 980M.

The 940MX is not without a purpose, though. Its 23 W TDP is a major advantage in a portable device. The GTX 980M has no listed TDP, but the sheer hardware suggests a much higher power draw. For a thin and light laptop where battery life is a priority, the 940MX is a more sensible choice. The data shows it is slower, but it is also more power-efficient. No price or cost information is available, so the value judgement comes down to performance versus power consumption.

The GTX 980M is the clear winner for gaming, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated work. The 940MX is the better pick for a low-power mobile device where the user plays older games or just needs display output. The benchmark record shows no scenario where the 940MX wins, so the verdict is straightforward: GTX 980M for performance, 940MX for efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308, while the GeForce 940MX averages 4,844.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A:** The GTX 980M scores 23,832 versus the 940MX's 4,939, a lead of 382.5%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A:** The GTX 980M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit bus, while the 940MX has 40.10 GB/s from a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A:** The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, three times the 512 shading units found in the 940MX.

Q: Does the 940MX support Vulkan?

A:** Yes, the 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, just like the GTX 980M.

Q: What is the launch date of each GPU?

A:** The GTX 980M was released on October 6, 2014, and the 940MX was released on June 27, 2016. Both are now at end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

|----------------|----------------------|---------------------|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | GM204 | GM107 |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1038 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1127 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 72.13 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 108.2 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 3.462 TFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 23 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | 2016-06-27 |

| Average Benchmark | 5308 | 4844 |

| Percentile (All GPUs) | 31 | 28 |