AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 M260X and NVIDIA GeForce 940M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 M260X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 month(s) later
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 161 vs 154
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 6 December 2015 vs 13 March 2015 |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 161 vs 154 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 940M
- Around 73% higher core clock speed: 1072 MHz vs 620 MHz
- Around 64% higher boost clock speed: 1176 MHz vs 715 MHz
- Around 64% higher texture fill rate: 28.22 GTexel / s vs 17.16 GTexel / s
- Around 64% better floating-point performance: 903.2 gflops vs 549.1 gflops
- Around 80% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1126 vs 986
- Around 3% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5931 vs 5753
- Around 13% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2132 vs 1893
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 vs 1775
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3158
- Around 13% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2132 vs 1893
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 vs 1775
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3158
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1072 MHz vs 620 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz vs 715 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 28.22 GTexel / s vs 17.16 GTexel / s |
Floating-point performance | 903.2 gflops vs 549.1 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1126 vs 986 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5931 vs 5753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 vs 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 vs 1775 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3158 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 vs 1893 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 vs 1775 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3158 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M260X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | NVIDIA GeForce 940M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 986 | 1126 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 161 | 154 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5753 | 5931 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1893 | 2132 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1775 | 3065 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3158 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1893 | 2132 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1775 | 3065 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3158 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 506 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 168.449 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 M260X | NVIDIA GeForce 940M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
Code name | Opal | GM108 |
Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Launch date | 6 December 2015 | 13 March 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 1224 | 1226 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 715 MHz | 1176 MHz |
Compute units | 6 | |
Core clock speed | 620 MHz | 1072 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 549.1 gflops | 903.2 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Texture fill rate | 17.16 GTexel / s | 28.22 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1,870 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCI Express 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 14.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore | ||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus |