
GeForce 940MX vs Radeon R9 255

GeForce 940MX
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 255
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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. The GeForce 940MX is positioned at rank #300 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 940MX
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 940MX is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R9 255 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 255 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 255 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 65.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+65.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 940MX and Radeon R9 255

GeForce 940MX
The GeForce 940MX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 795 MHz to 861 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 23W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,509 points.

Radeon R9 255
The Radeon R9 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 940MX scores 1,509 and the Radeon R9 255 reaches 1,501 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 940MX is built on Maxwell while the Radeon R9 255 uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (GeForce 940MX) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 255). Raw compute: 0.8817 TFLOPS (GeForce 940MX) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255).
| Feature | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,509 | 1,501 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 1792+250% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8817 TFLOPS | 3.29 TFLOPS+273% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 112+250% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 448 KB+75% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 940MX comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 255 has 2 GB. The Radeon R9 255 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 940MX) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 255) — the GeForce 940MX has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 2 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 940MX draws 23W versus the Radeon R9 255's 190W — a 156.8% difference. The GeForce 940MX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 940MX) vs 400W (Radeon R9 255). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 23W-88% | 190W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-13% | 400W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 65.6+730% | 7.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 940MX launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Radeon R9 255 launched at $139 and now averages $30. The Radeon R9 255 costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 30.2 (GeForce 940MX) vs 50.0 (Radeon R9 255) — the Radeon R9 255 offers 65.6% better value. The GeForce 940MX is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce 940MX | Radeon R9 255 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-28% | $139 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $30-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 30.2 | 50.0+66% |
| Codename | GM107 | Tonga |
| Release | June 28 2016 | September 2 2014 |
| Ranking | #764 | #365 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















