Component comparison
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 4080
- + Release year (+8)
- + VRAM (GB) (+10 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+1350 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+702 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+192 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+35 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-24 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+44,030M)
- + CUDA cores (+9344)
- + TMUs (+280)
- + ROPs (+104)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+47.84 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+263.03 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+726.36 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+35.4)
- + PassMark (overall) (+23620)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+39809)
- + Normalized score (+66.6)
B
GeForce 940M
- + Die size (mm²) (+231 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 4080
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2023 (+8) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 12 GB (+10 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2250 MHz (+1350 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 716 GB/s (+702 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 256 bit (+192 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 110 W (+35 W) | 75 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-24 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 45,900M (+44,030M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 379 mm² | 148 mm² (+231 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 9,728 (+9344) | 384 |
| TMUs | 304 (+280) | 24 |
| ROPs | 112 (+104) | 8 |
| RT cores | 76 | — |
| Tensor cores | 304 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 48.74 TFLOPS (+47.84 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 280.60 GPixel/s (+263.03 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 761.50 GTexel/s (+726.36 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 41.8 (+35.4) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 24,753 (+23620) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 18,534 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 41,431 (+39809) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 72.8 (+66.6) | 6.2 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 4080 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 160 FPS | 17 FPS | +841.2% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290 FPS | 9 FPS | +3122.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 149 FPS | 5 FPS | +2880% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 178 FPS | 49 FPS | +263.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 171 FPS | 11 FPS | +1454.5% (A) |
| Fortnite | 270 FPS | 36 FPS | +650% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230 FPS | 14 FPS | +1542.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 249 FPS | 6 FPS | +4050% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 165 FPS | 14 FPS | +1078.6% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | 146 FPS | 2 FPS | +7200% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 170 FPS | 3 FPS | +5566.7% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 334 FPS | 10 FPS | +3240% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 246 FPS | 10 FPS | +2360% (A) |
| Valorant | 300 FPS | 40 FPS | +650% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4080 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).