Winner
Nvidia GeForce 940M
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce 940M based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GT 520M vs 940M |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 520M vs 940M among Laptop GPUs under 35W TDP
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan and Cloud Gate Factor | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 30 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 30 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 4.5 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce 940MGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Lower TDP | 12W | vs | 33W | 2.7x lower TDP | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,072 MHz | vs | 672 MHz | Around 60% higher clock speed | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 11,920 | vs | 4,742.5 | More than 2.5x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 952 | vs | 382 | Around 2.5x better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 6,942.5 | vs | 1,825 | More than 3.8x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 2,427 | vs | 502 | More than 4.8x better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Much better manhattan score | 3,575.1 | vs | 1,466.95 | Around 2.5x better manhattan score | |||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 1,024 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Significantly better particle simulation score | 262.54 mInteraction/s | vs | 25.04 mInteraction/s | Around 10.5x better particle simulation score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 823.3 GFLOPS | vs | 129.02 GFLOPS | Around 6.5x better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 25.73 GTexel/s | vs | 5.38 GTexel/s | More than 4.8x higher texture rate | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 8.58 GPixel/s | vs | 1.34 GPixel/s | Around 6.5x higher pixel rate | |||
| More shading units | 384 | vs | 48 | 336 more shading units | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 769 | vs | 214 | More than 3.5x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| More texture mapping units | 24 | vs | 8 | Three times as many texture mapping units | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 900 MHz | vs | 800 MHz | Around 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GT 520M vs 940M
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
Particle simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| 940M vs 940MX | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs R5 M430 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs 950M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs R7 M440 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs R7 M360 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs 920M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 940M vs R5 M330 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $304 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS |  |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
| | VS | |
| $304 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 960 vs R9 380 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 970 vs R9 390 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| R9 290X vs 970 | ||
