GeForce MX230 vs 410M

Place in the ranking	1181	646
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.90	32.77
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GF119	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 January 2011 (14 years ago)	21 February 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	256
Core clock speed	575 MHz	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.600	25.31
Floating-point processing power	0.1104 TFLOPS	0.81 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	8	16

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	48.06 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	+	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 410M 0.68

GeForce MX230 4.76
+600%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 410M 262

GeForce MX230 1831
+599%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce 410M 415

GeForce MX230 3364
+710%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 410M 1025

GeForce MX230 6679
+552%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

−163%

21
+163%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −233%	20−22 +233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −200%	14−16 +200%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −313%	33 +313%
Fortnite	1−2 −2700%	27−30 +2700%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −233%	20−22 +233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −733%	75 +733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −200%	14−16 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
World of Tanks	18−20 −261%	65 +261%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −125%	18 +125%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −233%	20−22 +233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −356%	40−45 +356%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −700%	30−35 +700%
World of Tanks	2−3 −1600%	30−35 +1600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Valorant	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	4−5
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
Valorant	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Metro Exodus	15 +0%	15 +0%
Valorant	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Dota 2	32 +0%	32 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +0%	19 +0%
Metro Exodus	9 +0%	9 +0%
Valorant	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10 +0%	10 +0%
Dota 2	43 +0%	43 +0%
Valorant	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Elden Ring	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Fortnite	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how GeForce 410M and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 163% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 2700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is ahead in 33 tests (56%)
there's a draw in 26 tests (44%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.68	4.76
Recency	5 January 2011	21 February 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.