AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and the AMD FirePro M4000, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. This test measures raw compute throughput across the GPU's shader array, and the results place the two cards very close together.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 points, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537 points. That gives the MX230 a 3.6% advantage in this specific test. In absolute terms, the gap is only 202 points, which is a narrow margin relative to the spread of scores seen across the broader GPU landscape. The MX230 wins the head-to-head comparison with 1 win and 0 losses.

To contextualize that 3.6% delta, consider how each card sits among its nearest rivals. The MX230's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6077, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX A400, averages 6078, a difference of exactly 0%. The MX230 is also within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049) and 0.7% below the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117). The AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1% at 6019. This clustering means the MX230 performs in a tight band where a few percentage points separate entire product tiers.

The FirePro M4000, by contrast, averages 5537 across its recorded benchmarks, which places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, scores 5604, meaning the FirePro is 1.2% behind that card. The FirePro sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). The FirePro's position among these rivals shows it is competitive with older mainstream mobile parts, but it does not reach the performance tier occupied by the MX230's peer group.

The single OpenCL result therefore tells a consistent story: the MX230 is slightly faster in compute workloads, and that small edge is enough to push it into a higher percentile ranking. The 3.6% delta in the direct comparison is smaller than the differences seen between some of the rivals in each card's neighborhood, so neither card can claim a dominant position. What the data shows is a modest but measurable performance advantage for the NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 5739 against the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537. The MX230 leads by 3.6%.

Q: How much faster is the MX230 than the FirePro M4000 in the OpenCL test?

A: The MX230 is 3.6% faster. In raw points, the margin is 202 points (5739 versus 5537).

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The MX230 ranks at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 ranks at the 32nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the MX230, and by how much do they differ?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6078, which is 0% different from the MX230's 6077 average. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6049 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6117 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6019 (1% behind).

Q: What are the closest rivals to the FirePro M4000, and by how much do they differ?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604, which is 1.2% ahead of the FirePro's 5537. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5501 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 averages 5483 (1% behind).

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 have any benchmark where it beats the MX230?

A: No. The database records one head-to-head benchmark, and the MX230 wins it. The FirePro M4000 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, using the GP108 chip and the Pascal architecture. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, built around the Chelsea chip and the GCN 1.0 architecture. The process node gap is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm gives the NVIDIA part a significant density advantage.

Transistor counts tell the rest of the story. The MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors onto a die size of 74 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro M4000 contains 1,500 million transistors spread across a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The MX230 fits more transistors into a much smaller area, which is consistent with the newer manufacturing process.

The compute resources are organized differently. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. AMD's part doubles the shader count and TMU count, yet the recorded performance does not reflect a doubling of throughput. The MX230 achieves 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro M4000 achieves 691.2 GFLOPS. Similarly, pixel rates favor the NVIDIA part: 24.50 GPixel/s for the MX230 versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro. Texture rates are closer: 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230 versus 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro.

Memory subsystems also differ. The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 128 bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro has more bandwidth despite the smaller capacity, but the MX230's higher pixel rate and texture rate indicate it processes what it fetches more efficiently.

Feature support diverges on several fronts. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The MX230 also records FP16 performance at 12.25 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4000 has no recorded FP16 figures.

The form factors differ as well. The MX230 is an integrated-class GPU with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors. The FirePro M4000 is an MXM module with no power connectors. The MX230 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0). The MX230 carries a 10 W TDP, while the FirePro M4000 carries a 33 W TDP, a difference that reflects the older process and larger die.

The release timeline is also notable. The MX230 was released on 2019-02-20, while the FirePro M4000 was released on 2012-06-26. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The FirePro M4000 lists a predecessor labeled "FirePro Mobility" and a successor labeled "Radeon Pro Mobile", while the MX230 lists no predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 as the stronger GPU in raw compute performance. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison, posting a 3.6% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL. It also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution, sitting at the 35th percentile versus the FirePro M4000's 32nd.

The MX230's advantage is not limited to the single benchmark. Its average score of 6077 places it alongside the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078) and the Quadro P2000 (6049), both of which are more modern professional parts. The FirePro M4000's average of 5537 places it in a lower tier, near older mainstream mobile parts like the GeForce MX130 and GeForce GTX 765M.

The architecture comparison reinforces the MX230's position. Despite having half the shading units and half the TMUs of the FirePro M4000, the MX230 produces higher FP32 throughput (783.9 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS) and more than double the pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s). The 14 nm process and Pascal architecture deliver more performance per transistor, and the efficiency gap shows in the TDP: 10 W for the MX230 versus 33 W for the FirePro.

For users choosing between these two, the data favors the MX230 for any workload that relies on compute throughput, pixel fill, or texture processing. The FirePro M4000 does offer higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s), which could matter in memory-bound scenarios, but its lower compute and pixel rates limit its overall capability. The MX230 is also newer by nearly seven years, supporting a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

The FirePro M4000's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are its only clear specification advantages. For workloads that are heavily dependent on memory throughput rather than shader compute, that bandwidth could narrow the gap. However, the recorded benchmark does not show any scenario where the FirePro takes the lead.

The verdict is straightforward: the MX230 is the better performer in the database's measurements, with a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and a direct benchmark win. The FirePro M4000 remains a functional older mobile GPU, but the data does not support choosing it over the MX230 on performance grounds.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 14 nm for the MX230 and 28 nm for the FirePro M4000. Transistor count is 1,800 million for the MX230 versus 1,500 million for the FirePro. Die size is 74 mm² for the MX230 and 123 mm² for the FirePro, giving transistor densities of 24.3 million per mm² and 12.2 million per mm², respectively.

The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the FirePro M4000 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the MX230 and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro. Memory capacity is 2 GB for the MX230 and 1024 MB for the FirePro. Bus width is 64 bit for the MX230 and 128 bit for the FirePro. Bandwidth is 48.06 GB/s for the MX230 and 64.00 GB/s for the FirePro.

Shader resources differ: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the MX230; 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the FirePro. Pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s for the MX230 and 10.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro. Texture rate is 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230 and 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro. FP32 compute is 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230 and 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro. The MX230 records FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS; the FirePro has no FP16 figure.

TDP is 10 W for the MX230 and 33 W for the FirePro. Slot width is "IGP" for the MX230 and "MXM Module" for the FirePro. Neither card uses power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX230 and MXM-A (3.0) for the FirePro. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) for the MX230 and 12 (11_1) for the FirePro. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support is 1.4 for the MX230 and 1.2.170 for the FirePro. Release dates are 2019-02-20 for the MX230 and 2012-06-26 for the FirePro.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in compute performance, as measured by the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. It scores 5739 against the FirePro M4000's 5537, a 3.6% margin. The MX230 also wins on pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.50 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s). Its FP32 output of 783.9 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro's 691.2 GFLOPS. The MX230's higher percentile ranking (35th versus 32nd) and higher average score (6077 versus 5537) reinforce its position across the broader database.

The MX230 also wins on efficiency. Its 10 W TDP is less than a third of the FirePro M4000's 33 W TDP, and it achieves higher performance despite that lower power envelope. The newer process node and architecture deliver better performance per watt, which is relevant for portable devices where thermal and battery constraints matter.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins on memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s throughput exceeds the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, thanks to the wider 128 bit bus. The FirePro also has double the shading units (512 versus 256) and double the TMUs (32 versus 16), though those resources do not translate into higher recorded performance in the OpenCL test.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the MX230 is the better choice for general compute workloads, pixel-heavy rendering, and texture processing. Its higher FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate make it the stronger part for tasks that stress the shader array or the ROP pipeline. The FirePro M4000 could be preferred in scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, such as certain data-transfer-heavy workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not include a test that isolates that advantage.

The MX230's newer feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, gives it broader compatibility with modern graphics APIs. The FirePro M4000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 place it a generation behind in API support. For applications that leverage newer API features, the MX230 is the safer pick.

In summary, the MX230 wins the compute and efficiency categories, while the FirePro M4000 wins the memory bandwidth category. The single recorded benchmark, the OpenCL compute test, goes to the MX230, and no recorded test favors the FirePro. Users should select based on whether their workload prioritizes compute throughput and efficiency (MX230) or raw memory bandwidth (FirePro M4000), with the caveat that the database's measurements show the MX230 ahead in the only direct comparison available.