GeForce 940M vs GTX 480M SLI

Place in the ranking	571	782
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.47	6.12
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	N11E-GTX-A3	GM108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	25 May 2010 (14 years ago)	13 March 2015 (9 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	704	384
Core clock speed	425 MHz	1072 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1176 MHz
Number of transistors	6000 Million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 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

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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11	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 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. 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.

GTX 480M SLI 6.47
+122%

GeForce 940M 2.92

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.

GTX 480M SLI 4229
+75.8%

GeForce 940M 2406

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.

GTX 480M SLI 16500
+119%

GeForce 940M 7531

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:

900p	61 +126%	27−30 −126%
Full HD	66 +267%	18 −267%
4K	27−30 +108%	13 −108%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+66.7%

6−7

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +20%	15 −20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +30%	10 −30%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +16.7%	12 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +20%	15 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +2.4%	41 −2.4%
Hitman 3	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +77.3%	21−24 −77.3%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +28.6%	14 −28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +4.8%	21 −4.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +30.8%	35−40 −30.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +40%	10 −40%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +23.5%	34 −23.5%
Hitman 3	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +77.3%	21−24 −77.3%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −20%	24 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +30.8%	35−40 −30.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +75%	8 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +180%	14−16 −180%
Hitman 3	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +77.3%	21−24 −77.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +233%	6 −233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +30.8%	35−40 −30.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+80%

−80%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Hitman 3	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +141%	16−18 −141%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+83.3%

6−7

−83.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

This is how GTX 480M SLI and GeForce 940M compete in popular games:

GTX 480M SLI is 126% faster in 900p
GTX 480M SLI is 267% faster in 1080p
GTX 480M SLI is 108% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 480M SLI is 700% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 940M is 20% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 480M SLI is ahead in 60 tests (98%)
GeForce 940M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.47	2.92
Recency	25 May 2010	13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt