GeForce 705M vs 920MX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 920MX and GeForce 705M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 920MX
2016
2 GB DDR3, GDDR5, 16 Watt
2.54
+133%

920MX outperforms 705M by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8641124
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.195.58
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM108GF119
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date25 March 2016 (9 years ago)27 September 2013 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores25648
Core clock speed965 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed993 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)16 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate23.833.800
Floating-point processing power0.5084 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs248
L1 Cache128 KB64 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB128 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3, GDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 2560x1600
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 2560x1600
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
GPU Boost2.0no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus++
GameWorks+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GeForce 920MX 2.54
+133%
GeForce 705M 1.09

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 920MX 1063
+134%
Samples: 1153
GeForce 705M 455
Samples: 21

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD18
+157%
7−8
−157%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Fortnite 21
+950%
2−3
−950%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Valorant 40−45
+34.4%
30−35
−34.4%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+92.3%
24−27
−92.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 36
+140%
14−16
−140%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Fortnite 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+200%
2−3
−200%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Valorant 40−45
+34.4%
30−35
−34.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 34
+127%
14−16
−127%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Valorant 40−45
+34.4%
30−35
−34.4%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 11
+450%
2−3
−450%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+118%
10−12
−118%
Valorant 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Valorant 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GeForce 920MX and GeForce 705M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 920MX is 157% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 920MX is 2100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GeForce 920MX surpassed GeForce 705M in all 43 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.54 1.09
Recency 25 March 2016 27 September 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 16 Watt 15 Watt

GeForce 920MX has a 133% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 705M, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 920MX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 705M in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 920MX
GeForce 920MX
NVIDIA GeForce 705M
GeForce 705M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 1159 votes

Rate GeForce 920MX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 16 votes

Rate GeForce 705M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 920MX or GeForce 705M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.