GeForce MX230 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce MX230, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2018
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
4.75
+0.2%

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking641642
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.45no data
ArchitecturePolaris (2016−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePolaris 12N17S-G0
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date21 March 2018 (6 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores512256
Core clock speedno data1519 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz1531 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0125.31
Floating-point performance1.248 gflops0.81 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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
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 width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s48.06 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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.

PRO WX 2100 4.75
+0.2%
GeForce MX230 4.74

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.

PRO WX 2100 1833
+0.2%
GeForce MX230 1830

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 HD21−24
−4.8%
22
+4.8%

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 12−14
+0%
13
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−40%
14
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−40%
14
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−30.8%
17
+30.8%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−96.7%
59
+96.7%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−63.6%
18
+63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−35.3%
23
+35.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−23.1%
16
+23.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−30%
13
+30%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−20%
12
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+8.3%
12
−8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−76.7%
53
+76.7%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−18.2%
13
+18.2%
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 12−14
+117%
6
−117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+150%
12
−150%
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 16−18
+88.9%
9
−88.9%
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 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
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 PRO WX 2100 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX230 is 5% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 150% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 97% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 6 tests (9%)
  • GeForce MX230 is ahead in 14 tests (21%)
  • there's a draw in 48 tests (71%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.75 4.74
Recency 21 March 2018 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 10 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 0.2% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX230, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 400% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon PRO WX 2100 and GeForce MX230.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX230 is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
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.


3.5 36 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1318 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.