Component comparison
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX550
- + Release year (+6)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+600 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+82 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-16 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+2,830M)
- + Base clock (MHz) (+45 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+222 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+640)
- + TMUs (+8)
- + ROPs (+8)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.80 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+3.55 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+7.10 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+26.4)
- + PassMark (overall) (+3286)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+4504)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+28043)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+27820)
- + Normalized score (+42.9)
B
GeForce 940M
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+52 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX550
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+6) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz (+600 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 96 GB/s (+82 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 75 W (+50 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm (-16 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M (+2,830M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 148 mm² (+52 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz (+45 MHz) | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1320 MHz (+222 MHz) | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 (+640) | 384 |
| TMUs | 32 (+8) | 24 |
| ROPs | 16 (+8) | 8 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS (+1.80 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s (+3.55 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s (+7.10 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 32.8 (+26.4) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 4,419 (+3286) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 2,470 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 6,126 (+4504) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 34,068 (+28043) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 32,369 (+27820) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 49.1 (+42.9) | 6.2 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX550 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 45 FPS | 17 FPS | +164.7% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55 FPS | 9 FPS | +511.1% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 FPS | 5 FPS | +320% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 111 FPS | 49 FPS | +126.5% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 FPS | 11 FPS | +309.1% (A) |
| Fortnite | 60 FPS | 36 FPS | +66.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45 FPS | 14 FPS | +221.4% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47 FPS | 6 FPS | +683.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 21 FPS | 2 FPS | +950% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21 FPS | 3 FPS | +600% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 50 FPS | 10 FPS | +400% (A) |
| Valorant | 95 FPS | 40 FPS | +137.5% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce MX550 wins 19 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).