GeForce GTX 1650 vs MX230

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX230 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX230
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
4.75

GTX 1650 outperforms MX230 by a whopping 329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking643266
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data39.31
Power efficiency33.1218.97
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP108TU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date21 February 2019 (5 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores256896
Core clock speed1519 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1582 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate25.3193.24
Floating-point processing power0.81 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1656

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA+7.5

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 MX230 4.75
GTX 1650 20.40
+329%

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 MX230 1834
GTX 1650 7871
+329%

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 MX230 3364
GTX 1650 13645
+306%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce MX230 2468
GTX 1650 9203
+273%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX230 15797
GTX 1650 50549
+220%

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 MX230 6572
GTX 1650 39167
+496%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX230 183041
GTX 1650 373333
+104%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GeForce MX230 7113
GTX 1650 35742
+402%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GeForce MX230 6604
GTX 1650 39941
+505%

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 HD20
−245%
69
+245%
1440p8−9
−363%
37
+363%
4K5−6
−360%
23
+360%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data4.03
4Kno data6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
−308%
53
+308%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−840%
47
+840%
Battlefield 5 19
−316%
79
+316%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14
−271%
52
+271%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%
Far Cry 5 14
−357%
64
+357%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
−371%
80
+371%
Forza Horizon 4 59
−288%
229
+288%
Hitman 3 10−11
−390%
49
+390%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−842%
292
+842%
Metro Exodus 18
−461%
101
+461%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−492%
77
+492%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
−400%
115
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−398%
224
+398%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
−419%
83
+419%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−600%
35
+600%
Battlefield 5 13
−454%
72
+454%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 13
−254%
46
+254%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%
Far Cry 5 12
−333%
52
+333%
Far Cry New Dawn 12
−367%
56
+367%
Forza Horizon 4 53
−279%
201
+279%
Hitman 3 10−11
−370%
47
+370%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−739%
260
+739%
Metro Exodus 13
−446%
71
+446%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−323%
55
+323%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−335%
74
+335%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−171%
45−50
+171%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−358%
206
+358%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6
−317%
25
+317%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−160%
13
+160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%
Far Cry 5 7
−457%
39
+457%
Forza Horizon 4 12
−442%
65
+442%
Hitman 3 10−11
−310%
41
+310%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−93.5%
60
+93.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−265%
62
+265%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−367%
42
+367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+114%
21
−114%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−315%
54
+315%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−367%
42
+367%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−414%
36
+414%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−350%
18
+350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−475%
21−24
+475%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−380%
24
+380%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−1120%
122
+1120%
Hitman 3 9−10
−200%
27
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−291%
43
+291%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1950%
41
+1950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−500%
24−27
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−383%
145
+383%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−289%
35
+289%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−567%
20
+567%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−467%
17
+467%
Hitman 3 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−720%
41
+720%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2600%
27
+2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2500%
26
+2500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−150%
5
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 4−5
Far Cry 5 2−3
−500%
12
+500%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−650%
30
+650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−700%
8
+700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−240%
17
+240%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+0%
26
+0%

This is how GeForce MX230 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 245% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 363% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 360% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 114% faster.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 2600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX230 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 66 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.75 20.40
Recency 21 February 2019 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 75 Watt

GeForce MX230 has 650% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 329.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX230 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX230 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 1375 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23407 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.