GeForce 920M vs GeForce GT 340

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 920M is positioned at rank 355 and the GeForce GT 340 is on rank 170, so the GeForce GT 340 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 920M

#345

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1000%

#347

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

906%

#348

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

904%

#352

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

822%

#353

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

816%

#355

GeForce 920M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#357

Radeon 625

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

99%

#359

Radeon R7 M350

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

98%

#360

GeForce 920MX

MSRP: $100|Avg: $54

98%

#361

Radeon RX Vega11 Ryzen 7 3750H

MSRP: $150|Avg: $45

98%

#362

Radeon HD 7670A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $40

97%

#363

Radeon Vega 8

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

96%

#367

GeForce 615

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

93%

#369

Radeon Ryzen 7 6800HS

MSRP: $600|Avg: $600

92%

#370

GeForce GT 730A

MSRP: $75|Avg: $20

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 340

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

983%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

944%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

933%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

932%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

930%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

925%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

913%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

909%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

901%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

899%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

888%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

886%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

870%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

869%

#92

Radeon Ryzen 7 4800H

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

98%

#93

Radeon Ryzen 5 5600U

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

95%

#94

Radeon Ryzen 5 5600H

MSRP: $350|Avg: $350

92%

#95

Radeon Ryzen 5 5500U

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

91%

#155

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

1084%

#170

GeForce GT 340

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

100%

#171

GeForce GT 230

MSRP: $44|Avg: $44

99%

#172

Radeon HD 6670

MSRP: $99|Avg: $99

99%

#175

Radeon R5 420

MSRP: $80|Avg: $20

97%

#176

Radeon R7 A8-7670K

MSRP: $118|Avg: $50

97%

#177

Radeon HD 6570

MSRP: $79|Avg: $79

95%

#178

Radeon HD 8370D

MSRP: $45|Avg: $10

95%

#181

Radeon HD 8310E

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

92%

#183

GeForce GT 610

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

92%

#185

Radeon HD 6530D

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GT 340 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 920M.

Insight	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GT 340 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce 920M Benchmark Check

GeForce GT 340 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

No prediction data available

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

No prediction data available

League of Legends

League of Legends

No prediction data available

Valorant

Valorant

No prediction data available

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 920M and GeForce GT 340

GeForce 920M

The GeForce 920M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 25 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 965 MHz to 993 MHz. It has 256 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 16W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 717 points.

GeForce GT 340

The GeForce GT 340 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 29 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 993 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 64W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 738 points. Launch price was $89.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 920M scores 717 and the GeForce GT 340 reaches 738 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 920M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GT 340 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 256 (GeForce 920M) vs 384 (GeForce GT 340). Raw compute: 0.5084 TFLOPS (GeForce 920M) vs 0.7626 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 340).

Feature	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
G3D Mark Score	717	738+3%
Architecture	Maxwell	Kepler
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	256	384+50%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.5084 TFLOPS	0.7626 TFLOPS+50%
ROPs	8	16+100%
TMUs	24	32+33%
L1 Cache	128 KB+300%	32 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce 920M comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GT 340 has 1 GB. The GeForce GT 340 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 920M) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 340) — the GeForce 920M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	1 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce 920M) vs 11.1 (10_1) (GeForce GT 340). Vulkan: 1.1 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
DirectX	11.0	11.1 (10_1)
Vulkan	1.1	N/A
OpenGL	4.5+36%	3.3
Max Displays	1	2+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 920M) vs None (GeForce GT 340). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs VP4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce 920M) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GT 340).

Feature	GeForce 920M	GeForce GT 340
Encoder	No	None
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP5	VP4
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 920M draws 16W versus the GeForce GT 340's 64W — a 120% difference. The GeForce 920M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 920M) vs 300W (GeForce GT 340). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75.