GeForce MX230 vs ATI Radeon IGP 340M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated641
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data32.83
ArchitectureRage 6 (2000−2007)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameRS200GP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 October 2002 (22 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 cores2256
Core clock speed183 MHz1519 MHz
Boost clock speed180 MHz1582 MHz
Number of transistors30 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt
Texture fill rate0.3725.31
Floating-point processing powerno data0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs216

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 3.0 x16
WidthIGPno data
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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.

DirectX7.012 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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.

ATI IGP 340M 2
GeForce MX230 1834
+91600%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 October 2002 21 February 2019
Chip lithography 180 nm 14 nm

GeForce MX230 has an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon IGP 340M and GeForce MX230. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon IGP 340M is a desktop 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.

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.


ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M
NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230

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.


5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1366 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 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.