GeForce MX230 vs NVS 510

Place in the ranking	923	645
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	no data
Power efficiency	3.50	32.55
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	GP108
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)	21 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	no data

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 cores	192	256
Core clock speed	797 MHz	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.75	25.31
Floating-point processing power	0.306 TFLOPS	0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	16	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
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	160 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	891 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.51 GB/s	48.06 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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

4x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

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.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	3.0	+

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.

NVS 510 1.79

GeForce MX230 4.75
+165%

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.

NVS 510 691

GeForce MX230 1831
+165%

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.

NVS 510 1704

GeForce MX230 6631
+289%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

NVS 510 1868

GeForce MX230 7113
+281%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

NVS 510 1282

GeForce MX230 6604
+415%

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

7−8

−200%

21
+200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

64.14

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +0%	13 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14 +0%	14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	18 +0%	18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +0%	23 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16 +0%	16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	13 +0%	13 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6 +0%	6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9 +0%	9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	7 +0%	7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12 +0%	12 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +0%	9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +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%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+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

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

This is how NVS 510 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 200% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.79	4.75
Recency	23 October 2012	21 February 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 165.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation card while GeForce MX230 is a notebook one.

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