GeForce MX230 vs Radeon HD 6520G

Place in the ranking	1149	643
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.55	33.12
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Sumo	GP108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 December 2011 (12 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	320	256
Core clock speed	400 MHz	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.400	25.31
Floating-point processing power	0.256 TFLOPS	0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	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	IGP	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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

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	11.2 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.4
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	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.

HD 6520G 0.78

GeForce MX230 4.75
+509%

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.

HD 6520G 299

GeForce MX230 1834
+513%

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.

HD 6520G 492

GeForce MX230 3364
+584%

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:

900p	8 −463%	45−50 +463%
Full HD	6 −233%	20 +233%

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	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry 5	0−1	14
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −158%	30−35 +158%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	12−14
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −283%	23 +283%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −333%	13 +333%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry 5	0−1	12
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −158%	30−35 +158%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	12−14
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	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −20%	6 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry 5	0−1	7
Hitman 3	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −158%	30−35 +158%
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	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

12−14

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	9−10
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	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	4−5
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−200%

9−10
+200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Far Cry 5	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%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Metro Exodus	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +0%	53 +0%
Metro Exodus	13 +0%	13 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	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
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how HD 6520G and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 463% faster in 900p
GeForce MX230 is 233% 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 HD 6520G is 11% faster.
in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 1600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6520G is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GeForce MX230 is ahead in 34 tests (61%)
there's a draw in 21 test (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.78	4.75
Recency	7 December 2011	21 February 2019
Chip lithography	32 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 509% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6520G in performance tests.

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