Component comparison
GeForce MX350 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce MX350 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX350
- + Release year (+5)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+852 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+42 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-14 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,430M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+16 mm²)
- + Base clock (MHz) (+334 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+370 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+256)
- + TMUs (+8)
- + ROPs (+8)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+0.30 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+5.92 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+11.84 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+19.8)
- + PassMark (overall) (+1685)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+2749)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+7087)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+8820)
- + Normalized score (+24.6)
B
GeForce 940M
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+55 W)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX350
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+5) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1752 MHz (+852 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 56 GB/s (+42 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 20 W | 75 W (+55 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 14 nm (-14 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 3,300M (+1,430M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 132 mm² (+16 mm²) | 148 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1354 MHz (+334 MHz) | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1468 MHz (+370 MHz) | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 640 (+256) | 384 |
| TMUs | 32 (+8) | 24 |
| ROPs | 16 (+8) | 8 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 1.20 TFLOPS (+0.30 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 23.49 GPixel/s (+5.92 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 46.98 GTexel/s (+11.84 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 26.1 (+19.8) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 2,818 (+1685) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,336 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,371 (+2749) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 13,112 (+7087) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 13,369 (+8820) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 30.8 (+24.6) | 6.2 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX350 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anno 1800 | 19 FPS | 7 FPS | +171.4% (A) |
| Battlefield 5 | 37 FPS | 17 FPS | +117.6% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 66 FPS | 9 FPS | +633.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 FPS | 5 FPS | +220% (A) |
| Darksiders III | 31 FPS | 13 FPS | +138.5% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 83 FPS | 49 FPS | +69.4% (A) |
| F1 2019 | 28 FPS | 18 FPS | +55.6% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 27 FPS | 11 FPS | +145.5% (A) |
| Farming Simulator 19 | 49 FPS | 19 FPS | +157.9% (A) |
| Fortnite | 82 FPS | 36 FPS | +127.8% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37 FPS | 14 FPS | +164.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 25 FPS | 6 FPS | +316.7% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 46 FPS | 14 FPS | +228.6% (A) |
| Kingdom Come: Deliverance | 23 FPS | 10 FPS | +130% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | 12 FPS | 2 FPS | +500% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18 FPS | 3 FPS | +500% (A) |
| Rocket League | 67 FPS | 24 FPS | +179.2% (A) |
| Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order | 19 FPS | 11 FPS | +72.7% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 27 FPS | 10 FPS | +170% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 21 FPS | 10 FPS | +110% (A) |
| Total War: Three Kingdoms | 12 FPS | 9 FPS | +33.3% (A) |
| Valorant | 129 FPS | 40 FPS | +222.5% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce MX350 wins 20 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).