Radeon 780M vs GeForce MX230

Place in performance ranking	642	299
Place by popularity	not in top-100	46
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	RDNA 3 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	N17S-G0	Phoenix
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)	5 January 2023 (1 year 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	256	768
Core clock speed	1519 MHz	1500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	3000 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	54 Watt (35 - 54 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	25.31	139.2
Floating-point performance	0.81 gflops	8.909 gflops

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	no data
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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
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.

GeForce MX230 4.75

Radeon 780M 18.32
+286%

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.

GeForce MX230 1832

Radeon 780M 7067
+286%

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

Radeon 780M 12413
+269%

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

Radeon 780M 7935
+222%

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

Radeon 780M 48105
+205%

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

Radeon 780M 429810
+135%

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	23 −56.5%	36 +56.5%
1440p	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
4K	3−4 −400%	15 +400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−388%

39
+388%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 −215%	40−45 +215%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Battlefield 5	19 −216%	60−65 +216%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14 −164%	35−40 +164%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −288%	31 +288%
Far Cry 5	14 −207%	40−45 +207%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 −188%	45−50 +188%
Forza Horizon 4	59 −94.9%	110−120 +94.9%
Hitman 3	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −190%	90−95 +190%
Metro Exodus	18 −250%	60−65 +250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −277%	45−50 +277%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 −161%	60−65 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −93.3%	85−90 +93.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16 −156%	40−45 +156%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Battlefield 5	13 −362%	60−65 +362%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	13 −185%	35−40 +185%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −200%	24 +200%
Far Cry 5	12 −258%	40−45 +258%
Far Cry New Dawn	12 −308%	45−50 +308%
Forza Horizon 4	53 −117%	110−120 +117%
Hitman 3	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −190%	90−95 +190%
Metro Exodus	13 −385%	60−65 +385%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −277%	45−50 +277%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −218%	54 +218%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −147%	40−45 +147%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −93.3%	85−90 +93.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6 −583%	40−45 +583%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9 −311%	35−40 +311%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −188%	23 +188%
Far Cry 5	7 −514%	40−45 +514%
Forza Horizon 4	12 −858%	110−120 +858%
Hitman 3	10−11 −250%	35−40 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −71%	53 +71%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −171%	46 +171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 −222%	29 +222%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +150%	18 −150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−277%

45−50
+277%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −300%	27−30 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −320%	21−24 +320%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Hitman 3	9−10 −144%	21−24 +144%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −236%	35−40 +236%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1600%	30−35 +1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −400%	20 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −267%	110−120 +267%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−233%

30−33
+233%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −1780%	90−95 +1780%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1800%	18−20 +1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1400%	15 +1400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −525%	24−27 +525%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−220%

16−18
+220%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	32 +0%	32 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

+0%

This is how GeForce MX230 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 57% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 320% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 400% 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 150% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 1800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 780M is ahead in 67 tests (94%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.75	18.32
Recency	20 February 2019	5 January 2023
Chip lithography	14 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	54 Watt

GeForce MX230 has 440% lower power consumption.

Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has a 285.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX230 in performance tests.

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