NVIDIA GeForce 840M

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is a mobile graphics solution from the GeForce 800M generation, built on the Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process from TSMC. It integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². This end-of-life part ships with a 2 GB DDR3 memory configuration on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth, and is designed for portable devices with a 33 W TDP and no dedicated power connectors.

Benchmark Performance

The GeForce 840M’s average benchmark score across the available tests is 5,200, placing it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs tracked by this database. This percentile figure indicates that the 840M sits below the majority of the field, but within its own performance tier, the margins to its nearest rivals are remarkably tight. The two specific benchmark results — a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,764 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,636 — show a notable gap between compute-oriented loads and graphics API workloads. The OpenCL result is roughly 24% higher than the Vulkan score, suggesting the chip’s compute throughput (863.2 GFLOPS FP32) is comparatively stronger than its ability to feed geometry through its 8 ROPs and 16 TMUs in newer graphics APIs.

Looking at the raw numbers, the 840M trails the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M by a mere 0.2% (Quadro’s average score is 5,212), a difference of only 12 points. Against the AMD Radeon HD 8570M, the 840M leads by 0.3% (rival score: 5,183), a margin of 17 points. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is 0.4% behind (rival score: 5,179), a 21-point gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, however, sits 0.7% ahead (rival score: 5,235), which translates to 35 points higher. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning that in practice, the 840M trades blows with its direct competitors — the differences are statistically negligible for real-world frame rates, though the GTX 760M holds a slight edge in the aggregated data.

The pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s and texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s are consistent with a small, low-power chip. The FP32 performance of 863.2 GFLOPS is the headline compute figure, and it aligns with the OpenCL score being the stronger of the two benchmarks. The Vulkan score’s lower value hints at potential driver overhead or architectural limitations in draw-call-heavy scenarios, which is typical for a Maxwell-era part with only 8 ROPs.

How It Compares

Against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M: The Quadro 4000M edges out the 840M by 0.2% in average score, making this the closest contest among all rivals. The Quadro’s 5,212 average versus the 840M’s 5,200 is a difference of 12 points. For gaming or general compute, this means the two are effectively interchangeable in performance, though the Quadro’s professional-market positioning might suggest different driver optimizations that the benchmark data does not capture.

Against the AMD Radeon HD 8570M: The 840M holds a slim 0.3% advantage, with scores of 5,200 versus 5,183. This 17-point margin is the smallest lead the 840M enjoys over any rival. The HD 8570M is an older architecture, yet the data shows the 840M barely outpaces it — a sign that the 840M’s Maxwell efficiency is offset by its narrow 64-bit memory bus, which limits bandwidth to 16.02 GB/s.

Against the AMD Radeon R7 M260X: The 840M leads by 0.4%, or 21 points, with the R7 M260X scoring 5,179. This is the largest advantage for the 840M among the listed rivals, though still under half a percent. The R7 M260X is a similar low-power part, and the data suggests the 840M’s higher boost clock (1124 MHz) and shading unit count (384) provide a marginal edge.

Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M: The GTX 760M is the only rival to meaningfully beat the 840M, leading by 0.7% (5,235 versus 5,200). The 35-point gap is small, but it is the largest delta in the set. The GTX 760M likely benefits from a wider memory interface or more ROPs, though the fact pack does not specify those details — only the score delta matters here.

Who Should Consider It

Given the 29th percentile standing and the tight clustering with rivals, the GeForce 840M is suited for 720p gaming with low to medium settings in older or less demanding titles. The 2 GB DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth is a bottleneck at higher resolutions; the data shows compute performance (OpenCL 5,764) is respectable, but the Vulkan score of 4,636 indicates that modern graphics APIs may not be fully leveraged. For 1080p, the 8 ROPs and 8.992 GPixel/s fill rate will struggle to maintain smooth frame rates in contemporary games, even at low settings. The 33 W TDP suggests this is for thin-and-light laptops where battery life is prioritized over raw graphics power.

Users who rely on OpenCL compute tasks — such as basic video encoding or GPU-accelerated filters — will find the 840M more capable than its Vulkan performance implies. The 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is adequate for light compute workloads. However, for gaming, the 0.3% lead over the HD 8570M and 0.4% lead over the R7 M260X are so small that any of these parts would deliver similar experiences. The 0.7% deficit to the GTX 760M, while minor, means the 840M is not the pick of this particular litter for gaming-centric buyers.

FAQ

Q: How does the GeForce 840M perform in OpenCL versus Vulkan?

A: The GeForce 840M scores 5,764 in Geekbench OpenCL and 4,636 in Geekbench Vulkan, indicating that its compute performance is significantly stronger than its graphics API performance in this benchmark suite.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the 840M?

A: The average benchmark score is 5,200, based on the available Geekbench results.

Q: How does the 840M compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X?

A: The 840M leads the R7 M260X by 0.4% in average score, with 5,200 versus 5,179 — a difference of 21 points.

Q: Is the 840M faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M?

A: No, the GTX 760M is 0.7% faster, scoring 5,235 versus the 840M’s 5,200.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the 840M?

A: The 840M has 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth, derived from 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the 840M support modern APIs?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though the Vulkan benchmark score of 4,636 suggests limited practical performance in that API.

Power and Cooling

The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W, which classifies it as a low-power mobile part. It uses no power connectors, drawing all power from the motherboard slot, and its slot width is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is soldered onto the laptop board rather than being a removable module. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, which provides adequate bandwidth for the 16.02 GB/s memory throughput. Because the suggested PSU field is null in the data, no specific power supply recommendation is provided; the 33 W TDP is the only power figure available, and it indicates that the system’s existing power delivery is sufficient for this GPU.

Memory Subsystem

The memory subsystem consists of 2 GB of DDR3 RAM on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. This is a narrow configuration that severely limits high-resolution performance. At 1080p or above, the 16.02 GB/s bandwidth becomes a bottleneck, as the 384 shading units have to wait for data from memory. The effective memory clock is 2 Gbps (with a base memory clock of 1001 MHz), which is modest for the era. For comparison, the average benchmark score of 5,200 sits in the 29th percentile, and the low bandwidth is a likely contributor to the Vulkan score (4,636) trailing the OpenCL score (5,764), since graphics workloads are more memory-latency-sensitive than compute kernels.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The GeForce 840M has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as indicated by the null values in the fact pack. Its architecture is Maxwell, which predates hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The feature set relies on the 384 shading units and 16 TMUs for execution. The API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means the hardware is capable of running titles that use these APIs, but without RT or tensor acceleration, any ray tracing effects would be handled via compute shaders — a task for which the 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is insufficient for real-time use. The pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s and texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s define the rasterization limits, and the lack of RT/tensor cores confirms this is a traditional rasterization-focused GPU. The display outputs are portable device dependent, so external monitor support varies by laptop model.