GeForce MX230 vs GT 230M

Place in performance ranking	1223	642
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	N10P-GE	N17S-G0
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	256
CUDA cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	500 MHz	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1531 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.000	25.31
Floating-point performance	0.1056 gflops	0.81 gflops
Gigaflops	158	no data

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	medium sized	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	GDDR2, GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3)	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	Dual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	HDA	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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GT 230M 0.55

GeForce MX230 4.75
+764%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

GT 230M 212

GeForce MX230 1831
+764%

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

2−3

−1000%

22
+1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−167%

8−9
+167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −225%	13 +225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −182%	30−35 +182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −283%	23 +283%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −300%	16 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −333%	13 +333%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −182%	30−35 +182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −183%	16−18 +183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −50%	6 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −182%	30−35 +182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −183%	16−18 +183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +11.1%	9 −11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−600%

7−8
+600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	4−5
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Hitman 3	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−200%

9−10
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−150%

5−6
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Far Cry 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Metro Exodus	18 +0%	18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	7 +0%	7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12 +0%	12 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 230M and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 1000% faster in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 230M is 11% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 2900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 230M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GeForce MX230 is ahead in 34 tests (52%)
there's a draw in 31 test (47%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.55	4.75
Recency	15 June 2009	20 February 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 763.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.

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