GeForce 940M vs GTX 260M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M SLI and GeForce 940M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
260M SLI outperforms 940M by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 805 | 846 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.56 | 6.31 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | GM108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 13 March 2015 (10 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 cores | 224 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1176 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 28.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.9032 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 type | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| Optimus | - | + |
| GameWorks | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 21−24
+10.5%
| 19
−10.5%
|
| 1440p | 100−110
+4.2%
| 96
−4.2%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+5%
| 20
−5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−54.5%
|
17
+54.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−112%
|
36
+112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
13
+18.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−17.2%
|
68
+17.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−63.3%
|
49
+63.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−50%
|
45
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+8%
|
24−27
−8%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+20%
|
24−27
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 260M SLI and GeForce 940M compete in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI is 11% faster in 1080p
- GTX 260M SLI is 4% faster in 1440p
- GTX 260M SLI is 5% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 150% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 940M is 112% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 260M SLI performs better in 33 tests (59%)
- GeForce 940M performs better in 9 tests (16%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.03 | 2.70 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 13 March 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 260M SLI has a 12.2% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce 940M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 940M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
