NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 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 940MX
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 36% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 700 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 10.9x lower typical power consumption: 23 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 2.7x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1536 MB
- 2.7x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1848 MHz (3696 data rate)
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3320
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3320
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 28 June 2016 vs 26 March 2010 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 700 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1536 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3320 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3320 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
- Around 76% higher texture fill rate: 42 billion / sec vs 23.83 GTexel / s
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 480 vs 384
- Around 76% better floating-point performance: 1,345.0 gflops vs 762.6 gflops
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4121 vs 1516
- 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 430 vs 172
- 2.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13143 vs 6325
- Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 34.483 vs 28.91
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 706.104 vs 312.94
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.245 vs 1.83
- Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.405 vs 27.833
- Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 106.875 vs 103.937
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5110 vs 2486
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3658 vs 3587
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5110 vs 2486
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3658 vs 3587
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 42 billion / sec vs 23.83 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 480 vs 384 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,345.0 gflops vs 762.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4121 vs 1516 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 vs 172 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13143 vs 6325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 34.483 vs 28.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 706.104 vs 312.94 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.245 vs 1.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.405 vs 27.833 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 106.875 vs 103.937 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5110 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3658 vs 3587 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5110 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3658 vs 3587 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1516 | 4121 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 | 430 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6325 | 13143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 | 34.483 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 | 706.104 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 | 4.245 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 | 30.405 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 | 106.875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 | 5110 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 | 3658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3320 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 | 5110 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 | 3658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3320 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 585 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |
| Code name | GM108 | GF100 |
| Launch date | 28 June 2016 | 26 March 2010 |
| Place in performance rating | 1071 | 742 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | |
| Price now | $71.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 61.35 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 762.6 gflops | 1,345.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 480 |
| Texture fill rate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 42 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
| CUDA cores | 480 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI, Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin & 8-pin |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way, 3-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB / s | 177.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) |
| Memory type | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| SLI | ||

