NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between two NVIDIA mobile GPUs from different lineages. The GeForce 940MX, a consumer-oriented chip from the GeForce 900M generation, faces the Quadro M3000M, a professional mobile workstation part. Across the two head-to-head benchmark tests available — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the Quadro M3000M wins decisively in both, with the GeForce 940MX failing to secure a single victory. The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story, however, with the 940MX averaging 4844 against the M3000M's 4621, a reversal that invites closer examination of how these scores are aggregated and what they represent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the GeForce 940MX's 4939. That is a delta of -70.3% for the 940MX, meaning the M3000M delivers more than three times the compute throughput in this test. The margin is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan: the M3000M posts 16668, while the 940MX manages 4749, a delta of -71.5%. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental gap in raw processing capability that aligns with the M3000M's larger die, higher transistor count, and double the shading units.

What makes these results particularly striking is the contrast with the average benchmark scores. The 940MX's average of 4844 places it at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, while the M3000M's average of 4621 sits at the 27th percentile. Yet in the head-to-head tests, the M3000M utterly dominates. The explanation lies in the benchmark suites: the 940MX has only two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which are compute-oriented, whereas the M3000M's average includes additional Passmark tests — DirectX 10, 11, 12, 9, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute — where its scores vary widely. The M3000M's Passmark G3D score of 5543 and G2D score of 402 pull its average down relative to its Geekbench performance, while the 940MX's average is derived solely from its two strong compute results.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card further contextualizes these numbers. The 940MX's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 560M, with an average score of 4855 and a delta of -0.2%, essentially a statistical tie. The M3000M's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 970M at 4628, with a delta of -0.1%. This suggests that while the M3000M is far ahead of the 940MX in head-to-head compute tests, its overall benchmark profile places it alongside mobile gaming GPUs from a similar era, albeit with a professional feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively, scoring 16646 against the GeForce 940MX's 4939, a margin of -70.3% for the 940MX.

Q: Does the GeForce 940MX win any head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Quadro M3000M wins both, giving it a 2-0 victory count.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between these two GPUs?

A: The GeForce 940MX has a higher average benchmark score of 4844, compared to the Quadro M3000M's 4621. This is despite the M3000M winning both head-to-head tests, due to the different sets of benchmarks included in each average.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 940MX ranks at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M ranks at the 27th percentile, making them nearly equivalent in overall standing.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro M3000M is significantly better in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 16668 versus the GeForce 940MX's 4749, a delta of -71.5%.

Q: Are there any Passmark benchmarks for the GeForce 940MX?

A: No. The 940MX only has Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan scores recorded, while the Quadro M3000M has seven additional Passmark results covering DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940MX's territory is limited but real: it holds a higher average benchmark score (4844 vs 4621) and a marginally better percentile ranking (28th vs 27th). This is largely an artifact of its benchmark profile — with only two compute-heavy tests, its average stays high. For users or systems that rely specifically on lightweight, low-power compute tasks, the 940MX's 23 W TDP and 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus might be sufficient, particularly in thin-and-light laptops where power constraints dominate.

The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, wins every direct comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 3.37 times higher, and its Vulkan score is 3.51 times higher. Beyond raw compute, the M3000M's additional Passmark results show breadth: a G3D score of 5543 indicates solid DirectX gaming-class performance, a G2D score of 402 suggests competent 2D workloads, and GPU compute of 2139 confirms sustained compute capability. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 160.4 GB/s bandwidth — exactly four times the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s — which matters for texture-heavy professional applications and larger datasets. The M3000M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the 940MX is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), a meaningful difference for modern graphics features.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on nearly every specification. The GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip, while the Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 — a substantially larger silicon. Transistor counts tell the scale: 1,870 million for the 940MX versus 5,200 million for the M3000M, a 2.78-fold difference. Die size grows from 148 mm² to 398 mm², though transistor density is similar at 12.6M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm², reflecting the same 28 nm TSMC process node.

Memory configurations are night and day. The 940MX offers 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth; the M3000M doubles capacity to 4 GB, quadruples bus width to 256-bit, and reaches 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. Compute resources scale accordingly: shading units jump from 512 to 1024, texture mapping units from 32 to 64, and ROPs from 8 to 32. Clock speeds are modestly higher on the M3000M — 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost versus 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost — but the real gains come from the wider architecture.

Power and interface also differ. The 940MX draws 23 W TDP, the M3000M 75 W TDP. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, but the bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x8 on the 940MX to PCIe 3.0 x16 on the M3000M, doubling available host bandwidth. Both lack RT and tensor cores, consistent with their Maxwell-era designs, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce 940MX is built on the original Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 — a second-generation refinement. The 940MX belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, released on 2016-06-27, with a predecessor in GeForce 800M and successor in GeForce 10 Mobile. The M3000M is from the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation, released earlier on 2015-08-17, succeeding Quadro Kepler-M and followed by Quadro Pascal-M.

The architectural gulf is visible in the feature set. Maxwell 2.0 on the M3000M enables DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes conservative rasterization and other advanced features that the 940MX's Maxwell 1.0 cannot support — hence its DirectX 12 (11_0) rating. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is otherwise equal. The M3000M's larger GM204 die allows for 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, double each of the 940MX's counts, while ROPs quadruple from 8 to 32. Pixel rate on the M3000M is 29.57 GPixel/s against 6.888 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s. FP32 compute reaches 1.892 TFLOPS on the M3000M, more than twice the 940MX's 881.7 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior performer in every head-to-head test, with OpenCL and Vulkan scores over 3.3 times higher than the GeForce 940MX. Its 4 GB memory, 256-bit bus, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and doubled compute resources make it the clear choice for any workload that stresses GPU throughput — professional rendering, scientific compute, or demanding DirectX 12 applications. The M3000M's Passmark results, including a 5543 G3D score, confirm it can handle graphics-intensive tasks well beyond the 940MX's reach.

The GeForce 940MX's only statistical advantage is its higher average benchmark score (4844 vs 4621) and a one-percentile edge in overall ranking (28th vs 27th). This is a quirk of benchmark aggregation rather than a performance endorsement. The 940MX's 23 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-portable systems where battery life and thermals take priority over performance, and its 2 GB GDDR5 memory, while limited, suffices for basic multimedia and light compute. But for anyone choosing between these two for actual work, the Quadro M3000M wins on sheer capability, and the 940MX's lower power draw is its only redeeming feature. The data suggests a simple rule: if you need compute, take the M3000M; if you need to fit in a slim chassis, the 940MX exists, but you will accept a 70% performance deficit to get there.