NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M 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, 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), 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.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 840M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 3.4x more pipelines: 384 vs 112
- 2.8x better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 308 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 97% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 65 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 vs 381
- 3.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 151 vs 41
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3191 vs 3085
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3191 vs 3085
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 12 March 2014 vs 3 March 2009 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 112 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 308 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 vs 381 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 vs 41 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 vs 3085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 vs 3085 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
- Around 34% higher core clock speed: 1375 MHz vs 1029 MHz
- Around 72% higher texture fill rate: 31 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s
| Core clock speed | 1375 MHz vs 1029 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 31 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1096 | 381 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 151 | 41 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.848 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.594 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.237 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3191 | 3085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3191 | 3085 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla |
| Code name | GM108 | G92 |
| Launch date | 12 March 2014 | 3 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1235 | 1457 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 308 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 31 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 65 Watt |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Gigaflops | 462 | |
| Transistor count | 754 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB / s | 61 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PureVideo HD | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce 840M with others
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370M
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon R7 240
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 630
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 617
NVIDIAGeForce 840M vs
AMDRadeon 680M
