GeForce MX230 vs Radeon R7 240

Place in the ranking	844	640
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.16	no data
Power efficiency	5.37	32.83
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Oland	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	21 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$69	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	320	256
Core clock speed	no data	1519 MHz
Boost clock speed	780 MHz	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	950 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	14.00	25.31
Floating-point processing power	0.448 TFLOPS	0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	20	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
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	-	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.

R7 240 2.33

GeForce MX230 4.75
+104%

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.

R7 240 898

GeForce MX230 1834
+104%

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.

R7 240 1220

GeForce MX230 2468
+102%

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

9−10

−122%

20
+122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.67

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 R7 240 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX230 is 122% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.33	4.75
Recency	8 October 2013	21 February 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 103.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 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.