NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M

The database places these two mobile GPUs in adjacent performance tiers, but they approach the task from completely different architectural generations, power envelopes, and design philosophies. The GeForce 940MX, a consumer part from the Maxwell era, consistently outperforms the Quadro K2100M, a professional Kepler-based chip, in the recorded OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, yet the margin is narrow enough that the underlying hardware differences demand close inspection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 940MX scores 4939 against the Quadro K2100M’s 4587. That is a 7.7% advantage for the consumer card, a clear but not overwhelming lead. The Vulkan test shows a slightly larger gap: 4749 for the 940MX versus 4343 for the K2100M, a 9.3% delta. This pattern suggests the Maxwell architecture handles the newer API more efficiently relative to the Kepler design, even though both GPUs officially support Vulkan. The 940MX wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record in the database’s direct comparisons.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this order. The 940MX holds an average score of 4844, while the K2100M averages 4151. That is a substantial 693-point difference, roughly 16.7% higher for the 940MX, which aligns with the individual test results. The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the 940MX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2100M sits at the 25th percentile. This three-point gap in percentile terms indicates the 940MX is positioned somewhat higher in the overall distribution of recorded hardware.

Looking at the nearest rival sets for context, the 940MX’s closest competitors by average score include the GeForce GTX 560M at 4855 (0.2% above the 940MX) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX at 4867 (0.5% above). On the other side, the 940MX runs 1.1% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791. The K2100M’s rivals cluster differently: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4170 (0.4% above the K2100M), and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193 (1% above). The K2100M is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630. These rival comparisons show that the 940MX operates in a slightly faster peer group overall, yet the wins it posts against the K2100M are consistent across both API tests.

Architecture Differences

The 940MX uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC. The K2100M uses the GK106S chip on the older Kepler architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node. Both are end-of-life products, but the 940MX launched in mid-2016, replacing the GeForce 800M series, while the K2100M launched in mid-2013, succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M line. That three-year gap in release timing explains the architectural priorities.

The transistor counts diverge significantly. The K2100M packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The 940MX contains 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The K2100M’s larger die and higher transistor count do not translate into superior benchmark scores, which suggests the Maxwell architecture delivers more performance per transistor in these workloads.

Clock speeds also differ. The 940MX runs at a base clock of 795 MHz with a boost up to 861 MHz. The K2100M is locked at 667 MHz for both base and boost, with no boost headroom at all. The memory clocks show a similar story: the 940MX’s memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K2100M’s memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Despite the K2100M having a wider memory bus, these clock differences directly impact the compute results.

The API support reveals another generational split. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The 940MX also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score, while the K2100M has a recorded Geekbench Metal score, suggesting the database includes platform-specific tests for each card.

Where Each One Wins

The 940MX wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS, compared to 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M, a 14.7% advantage. The texture rate follows the same pattern: 27.55 GTexel/s for the 940MX versus 32.02 GTexel/s for the K2100M, which is a 16.2% win for the 940MX. The pixel rate also favors the 940MX at 6.888 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s, an 18.6% margin. These measured rates confirm that the Maxwell chip does more work per clock despite its lower core count in some areas.

The K2100M does not win any recorded benchmarks, but its hardware specifications show where it could theoretically hold an edge. It has 576 shading units versus 512 for the 940MX, 48 texture mapping units versus 32, and 16 ROPs versus 8. The memory bus is 128-bit versus 64-bit, and the bandwidth is 48.13 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. These are structural advantages in parallel throughput and memory access, but the K2100M’s lower clocks and older architecture prevent them from showing up in the benchmark results.

The workload split is clear: the 940MX wins the compute and graphics workloads recorded in the database, while the K2100M’s advantages remain theoretical, confined to specification sheets rather than measured performance. For applications that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the 940MX is the faster card. The K2100M’s higher TDP of 55 W versus 23 W for the 940MX suggests it consumes more power without delivering a performance benefit in these tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable field. The 940MX uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell, while the K2100M uses the GK106S on Kepler. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 940MX’s base clock is 795 MHz and boost is 861 MHz; the K2100M’s base and boost are both 667 MHz. The 940MX’s memory runs at 1253 MHz with a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth; the K2100M’s memory runs at 752 MHz with a 128-bit bus and 48.13 GB/s bandwidth.

The 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die with a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The K2100M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die with a density of 11.5M / mm². The 940MX produces 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32, a pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s. The K2100M produces 768.4 GFLOPS, 8.004 GPixel/s, and 32.02 GTexel/s. The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W; the K2100M has a TDP of 55 W.

Both use GDDR5 memory with 2 GB capacity and no power connectors, and both are MXM modules with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The bus interfaces differ: the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K2100M uses MXM-A (3.0). The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4; the K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The release dates are 2016 for the 940MX and 2013 for the K2100M. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M averages 4151, a difference of 693 points in favor of the 940MX.

Q: What is the margin in the OpenCL test?

A: The 940MX scores 4939 versus 4587 for the K2100M, a 7.7% lead for the 940MX.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The K2100M has a wider 128-bit bus and higher bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s, compared to the 940MX’s 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K2100M has 576 shading units, while the 940MX has 512, giving the K2100M a 64-unit advantage.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS, which is 113.3 GFLOPS higher than the K2100M’s 768.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Why does the K2100M have a higher TDP?

A: The K2100M is rated at 55 W, while the 940MX is rated at 23 W, yet the lower-power card wins both recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M in every recorded benchmark and holds a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and superior measured compute rates. The 940MX wins the OpenCL test by 7.7% and the Vulkan test by 9.3%, and its FP32 output is 14.7% higher. The K2100M offers more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, a wider memory bus, and higher bandwidth, but these specifications do not translate into benchmark wins. The 940MX’s higher clocks, newer Maxwell architecture, and lower TDP make it the faster and more efficient part in the database’s measurements. For any workload captured by these tests, the 940MX is the correct pick. The K2100M remains a viable option only for scenarios where its specific hardware configuration matters more than measured performance, but the recorded data does not provide any such scenario.