GeForce 940M vs GTX 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280 with GeForce 940M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 280 outperforms 940M by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 746 | 794 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.98 | 6.13 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GM108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 13 March 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 240 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1176 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 48.16 | 28.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.9032 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1107 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 141.7 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | HDTVDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
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 | 18−21
+0%
| 18
+0%
|
| 1440p | 100−110
+4.2%
| 96
−4.2%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+5%
| 20
−5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 36.06 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.49 | no data |
| 4K | 30.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 280 and GeForce 940M compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
- GTX 280 is 4% faster in 1440p
- GTX 280 is 5% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.21 | 2.81 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 13 March 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 280 has a 14.2% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce 940M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 214.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 940M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280 is a desktop card while GeForce 940M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
