Component comparison
GeForce RTX 2050 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce RTX 2050 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 2050
- + Release year (+6)
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+850 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+98 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-20 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+6,830M)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+147 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+1664)
- + TMUs (+40)
- + ROPs (+24)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+3.83 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+22.27 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+44.54 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+23.2)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+7343)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+38254)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+38481)
- + Normalized score (+49.0)
B
GeForce 940M
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+30 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+52 mm²)
- + Base clock (MHz) (+285 MHz)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 2050
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+6) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB (+2 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1750 MHz (+850 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 112 GB/s (+98 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W | 75 W (+30 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm (-20 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 8,700M (+6,830M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 148 mm² (+52 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | 735 MHz | 1020 MHz (+285 MHz) |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1245 MHz (+147 MHz) | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 2,048 (+1664) | 384 |
| TMUs | 64 (+40) | 24 |
| ROPs | 32 (+24) | 8 |
| RT cores | 32 | — |
| Tensor cores | 64 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 4.73 TFLOPS (+3.83 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 39.84 GPixel/s (+22.27 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 79.68 GTexel/s (+44.54 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 29.6 (+23.2) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | — | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 3,221 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 8,965 (+7343) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 44,279 (+38254) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 43,030 (+38481) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 55.2 (+49.0) | 6.2 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 2050 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | ≈ 70 FPS | 17 FPS | +311.8% (A) |
| CS:GO | ≈ 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | ≈ 74 FPS | 9 FPS | +722.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 FPS | 5 FPS | +260% (A) |
| Dota 2 Reborn | 71 FPS | 49 FPS | +44.9% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 35 FPS | 11 FPS | +218.2% (A) |
| Fortnite | ≈ 95 FPS | 36 FPS | +163.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | ≈ 70 FPS | 14 FPS | +400% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 53 FPS | 6 FPS | +783.3% (A) |
| GTA V | ≈ 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 74 FPS | 14 FPS | +428.6% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | ≈ 35 FPS | 2 FPS | +1650% (A) |
| Overwatch | ≈ 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | ≈ 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 17 FPS | 3 FPS | +466.7% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | ≈ 58 FPS | 10 FPS | +480% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 47 FPS | 10 FPS | +370% (A) |
| Valorant | ≈ 130 FPS | 40 FPS | +225% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings. Values for GeForce RTX 2050 are model predictions (≈); GeForce 940M are direct measurements.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 2050 wins 18 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).