GeForce 840M vs Iris Graphics 540

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Iris Graphics 540
2015
64 MB eDRAM
3.04
+8.2%

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by a small 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking732757
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.120.14
ArchitectureGen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eN15S-GT
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2015 (8 years ago)12 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Current price$1043 $743

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce 840M has 17% better value for money than Iris Graphics 540.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores48384
Core clock speed300 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1124 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4017.98
Floating-point performanceno data863.2 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Iris Graphics 540 and GeForce 840M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 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 typeeDRAMDDR3
Maximum RAM amount64 MB4 GB
Memory bus widtheDRAM + 64/128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data16.02 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimusno data+
GameWorksno data+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan1.1.971.1.126
CUDAno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Graphics 540 3.04
+8.2%
GeForce 840M 2.81

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Iris Graphics 540 1259
+15.7%
GeForce 840M 1088

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 16% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Iris Graphics 540 8828
+22.8%
GeForce 840M 7191

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 23% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Iris Graphics 540 2212
GeForce 840M 2340
+5.8%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 6% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Iris Graphics 540 1448
GeForce 840M 1573
+8.6%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 9% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Iris Graphics 540 11327
+29.8%
GeForce 840M 8724

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 30% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

Iris Graphics 540 126078
+5.2%
GeForce 840M 119888

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 5% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 17
+143%
GeForce 840M 7

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 143% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 26
+387%
GeForce 840M 5

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 387% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 3
+115%
GeForce 840M 1

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 115% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 15
+73%
GeForce 840M 9

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 73% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 4
+117%
GeForce 840M 2

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 117% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 9
GeForce 840M 10
+20%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Iris Graphics 540 0
GeForce 840M 13
+6550%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 6550% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 9
GeForce 840M 10
+20%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 17
+143%
GeForce 840M 7

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 143% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 15
+73%
GeForce 840M 9

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 73% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 26
+387%
GeForce 840M 5

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 387% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 3
+115%
GeForce 840M 1

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 115% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 4
+117%
GeForce 840M 2

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms GeForce 840M by 117% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Iris Graphics 540 0.2
GeForce 840M 13.3
+6550%

GeForce 840M outperforms Iris Graphics 540 by 6550% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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:

900p45−50
+0%
45
+0%
Full HD23
+27.8%
18
−27.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−28.6%
9
+28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Iris Graphics 540 and GeForce 840M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 840M is 0% faster in 900p
  • Iris Graphics 540 is 28% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Graphics 540 is 100% faster than the GeForce 840M.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 840M is 29% faster than the Iris Graphics 540.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 540 is ahead in 22 tests (42%)
  • GeForce 840M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 30 tests (57%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.04 2.81
Recency 1 September 2015 12 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 33 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Iris Graphics 540 and GeForce 840M.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


Intel Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540
NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GeForce 840M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 89 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 540 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 805 votes

Rate GeForce 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.