Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5070
- + Release year (+10)
- + VRAM (GB) (+6 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+1100 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+658 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-24 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+29,230M)
- + CUDA cores (+5760)
- + TMUs (+168)
- + ROPs (+72)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+29.97 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+183.43 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+447.16 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+14.9)
- + PassMark (overall) (+17942)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+33327)
- + Normalized score (+63.3)
B
GeForce 940M
- + Die size (mm²) (+115 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5070
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+10) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+6 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2000 MHz (+1100 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 672 GB/s (+658 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 192 bit (+128 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 100 W (+25 W) | 75 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-24 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 31,100M (+29,230M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 263 mm² | 148 mm² (+115 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 6,144 (+5760) | 384 |
| TMUs | 192 (+168) | 24 |
| ROPs | 80 (+72) | 8 |
| RT cores | 48 | — |
| Tensor cores | 192 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 30.87 TFLOPS (+29.97 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 201.00 GPixel/s (+183.43 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 482.30 GTexel/s (+447.16 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 21.3 (+14.9) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 19,075 (+17942) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 34,949 (+33327) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 69.6 (+63.3) | 6.2 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5070 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 180 FPS | 17 FPS | +958.8% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300 FPS | 9 FPS | +3233.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170 FPS | 5 FPS | +3300% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 322 FPS | 11 FPS | +2827.3% (A) |
| Fortnite | 300 FPS | 36 FPS | +733.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270 FPS | 14 FPS | +1828.6% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 329 FPS | 6 FPS | +5383.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 170 FPS | 2 FPS | +8400% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 210 FPS | 3 FPS | +6900% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 436 FPS | 10 FPS | +4260% (A) |
| Valorant | 400 FPS | 40 FPS | +900% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5070 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).