FireStream 9270 vs GeForce 940M
If you are going to buy a new graphics card and are choosing between FireStream 9270 and GeForce 940M, there are a couple of things to consider. Cards with more VRAM in general perform better and allow you to play on higher graphics settings. Size also makes a difference. A model with a large heatsink can occupy up to three expansion slots on a motherboard. Be sure you have enough room in your PC case. When comparing GPUs with different architectures, more processing cores and even higher TFLOPS will not always translate to better performance. To help you decide which GPU you need, we have measured frame rates in a number of popular games. For more on how the FireStream 9270 stacks up against GeForce 940M, check out specs charts below.
FireStream 9270
GeForce 940M is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce 940M is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with GeForce 940M here:
Main Specs
| FireStream 9270 | GeForce 940M | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | No outputs |
| Check Price |
- FireStream 9270 has 113% more power consumption, than GeForce 940M.
- FireStream 9270 is connected by PCIe 2.0 x16, and GeForce 940M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.
- GeForce 940M has 2 GB more memory, than FireStream 9270.
- FireStream 9270 is used in Desktops, and GeForce 940M - in Laptops.
- FireStream 9270 is build with TeraScale architecture, and GeForce 940M - with Maxwell.
- Core clock speed of GeForce 940M is 322 MHz higher, than FireStream 9270.
- FireStream 9270 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and GeForce 940M - by 28 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FireStream 9270 is 1600 MHz higher, than GeForce 940M.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 2−3 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 1−2 |
| QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 12−14 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 4−5 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 40% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 8−9 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 16−18 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Battlefield 5 is 62% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce 940M in Call of Duty: Warzone is 4% more, than FireStream 9270. | ||
| low / 768p | 130−140 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 100−110 | 90−95 |
| ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 40−45 |
| QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 24−27 |
| 4K / 2160p | 12−14 | 18−20 |
| high / 768p | 75−80 | 65−70 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 9% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce 940M in Cyberpunk 2077 is 17% more, than FireStream 9270. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 70−75 |
| medium / 768p | 55−60 | 50−55 |
| ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 24−27 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Dota 2 is 14% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 3−4 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 3−4 |
| 4K / 2160p | 5−6 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 16−18 | 12−14 |
| medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 4−5 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Far Cry 5 is 60% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 55−60 | 50−55 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Fortnite is 12% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−11 | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 6−7 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 2−3 |
| 4K / 2160p | 8−9 | − |
| low / 720p | 21−24 | 20−22 |
| medium / 1080p | 12−14 | 9−10 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Forza Horizon 4 is 25% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 45−50 |
| medium / 768p | − | 35−40 |
| high / 1080p | 10−12 | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 3−4 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | 45−50 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Grand Theft Auto V is 21% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 1−2 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 10−11 | 6−7 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 3−4 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Metro Exodus is 100% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| high / 1080p | − | 85−90 |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 75−80 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 90−95 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Minecraft is 2% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 12−14 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | − |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 24−27 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 16−18 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce 940M in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 41% more, than FireStream 9270. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | − | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 10−11 | 5−6 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 100% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 21−24 | 14−16 |
| medium / 768p | 14−16 | 10−11 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 5−6 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 3−4 | 1−2 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 42% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 14−16 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9270 in World of Tanks is 2% more, than GeForce 940M. | ||
Full Specs
| FireStream 9270 | GeForce 940M | |
| Architecture | TeraScale | Maxwell |
| Code name | RV770 | N16S-GT-S/B |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2008 | 12 March 2015 |
| Pipelines | 800 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | |
| Transistor count | 956 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 30.00 | 28.22 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,200.0 gflops | 903.2 gflops |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 101 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Optimus | + | |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | |
| GameWorks | + | |
| Check Price |