AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and AMD Radeon HD 8730M in nearly the same performance tier, but the AMD part takes the only direct head-to-head result. In the single available comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, the HD 8730M scores 5955 against the MX230’s 5739, a 3.6% advantage for AMD. That margin is small enough to be within run-to-run variance, yet it is a clear win on paper. The MX230 counters with a Vulkan score of 6414, a test the HD 8730M does not have a published result for, indicating the NVIDIA part has broader API coverage in the data set. Average benchmark scores tell the same story: the MX230 averages 6077 across its two tests, while the HD 8730M averages 5955 from its single OpenCL run. Both GPUs sit at the 35th and 34th percentiles of all GPUs respectively, confirming they are entry-level parts aimed at thin laptops and basic productivity rather than gaming.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M wins it by a slim margin. The HD 8730M posts 5955 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739, resulting in a 3.6% deficit for NVIDIA. This is a modest lead, not a dominant one — the two GPUs are effectively peers in compute workloads that scale with OpenCL. The MX230’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture do not translate into a win here, suggesting that the HD 8730M’s wider memory bus and higher shader count compensate for its older GCN design.

Beyond the head-to-head, the MX230 has a second benchmark result that the HD 8730M lacks. In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX230 scores 6414, which is 11.8% higher than its own OpenCL score. This indicates the NVIDIA part handles Vulkan workloads better than OpenCL, or at least that its drivers are better optimized for the newer API. The HD 8730M has no Vulkan score in the data, so the MX230 holds an advantage in API support and likely in modern game compatibility, though the actual performance gap cannot be quantified. The average benchmark scores reinforce the parity: the MX230’s 6077 average is 2% higher than the HD 8730M’s 5955, but this is skewed by the MX230’s Vulkan result. When comparing only OpenCL, the AMD part is ahead.

The nearest rival data places both GPUs in the same performance cluster. The MX230’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A400 with an average score of 6078, a 0% delta, meaning the MX230 is statistically identical to that workstation card. The HD 8730M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K620M at 5957, also a 0% delta. The deltaPct values against their respective rivals range from -0.7% to 1% for the MX230 and -0.5% to 0.4% for the HD 8730M, confirming that both GPUs sit in a tight band of performance where no single part has a decisive edge. For practical purposes, a user moving from one to the other would not notice a difference in day-to-day tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, packing 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 24.3M per mm², a sign of its newer Pascal architecture. The AMD Radeon HD 8730M uses the Mars chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a much lower density of 12.3M per mm². The MX230’s smaller node allows it to run at far higher clocks: 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, compared to the HD 8730M’s 650 MHz base and 700 MHz boost. That is more than double the clock speed, yet the AMD part still wins the OpenCL test due to its other advantages.

Shader configuration differs significantly. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. The AMD part has 50% more shaders and 50% more TMUs, which helps in compute-heavy tasks, but its ROP count is half that of NVIDIA, limiting pixel fill rate. The pixel rate numbers bear this out: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s, while the HD 8730M manages only 5.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate tells a different story — the MX230 hits 24.50 GTexel/s, and the HD 8730M is at 16.80 GTexel/s, a smaller gap. Floating point performance favors the MX230 at 783.9 GFLOPS FP32, against the HD 8730M’s 537.6 GFLOPS. The MX230 also supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS, while the HD 8730M has no FP16 data.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 8730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. Despite having double the bus width, the AMD part’s slower memory clock (900 MHz vs 1502 MHz) results in 40% less bandwidth. This is a crucial weakness for the HD 8730M, as memory bandwidth often bottlenecks modern games and compute workloads. The MX230’s memory clock is listed as 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the HD 8730M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, a fourfold difference in effective speed. The MX230 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the HD 8730M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 — a curious inversion where the older GPU has a wider bus connection.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8730M wins the only direct benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 3.6%. This suggests it has an edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as video encoding, physics simulation, or scientific calculations. The HD 8730M’s higher shader count (384 vs 256) and wider 128-bit memory bus likely contribute to this result, even though its raw bandwidth is lower. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the AMD part is the better choice based on the data.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in every other measurable category. Its Vulkan score of 6414 demonstrates superior performance in modern graphics APIs, which matters for gaming and applications that use Vulkan. The MX230 also has significantly higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s vs 5.600 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (24.50 GTexel/s vs 16.80 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (783.9 GFLOPS vs 537.6 GFLOPS). The 46% advantage in FP32 is substantial, indicating better raw compute throughput when the workload is not limited by memory bandwidth. The MX230’s 48.06 GB/s bandwidth is 67% higher than the HD 8730M’s, which helps in texture-heavy scenes and high-resolution work. For gaming, the MX230 is the stronger part due to its higher fill rates and newer architecture, even though the HD 8730M wins the single OpenCL test.

The MX230 also has a clear advantage in API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 8730M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX230’s higher Vulkan version and full DirectX 12_1 feature level mean better compatibility with modern titles and features like conservative rasterization. The HD 8730M’s DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_1 feature level, which may exclude some newer effects. For users who play recent games or use Vulkan-based applications, the MX230 is the safer choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8730M is faster, scoring 5955 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the MX230’s 5739, a 3.6% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA MX230 support more modern APIs?

A: Yes. The MX230 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the HD 8730M supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). The MX230 also has a published Vulkan score of 6414, which the HD 8730M lacks.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA MX230 has significantly higher bandwidth at 48.06 GB/s, versus 28.80 GB/s for the HD 8730M. The MX230 uses GDDR5 memory, while the HD 8730M uses DDR3.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The MX230 averages 6077 across its two tests, while the HD 8730M averages 5955 from its single test. The MX230 is 2% higher, but this includes its Vulkan result which the AMD part does not have.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance class?

A: Yes. The MX230 is at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and the HD 8730M is at the 34th percentile. Their nearest rivals are also closely matched, with deltas of 0% for both parts.

Q: Which GPU has higher shader count?

A: The AMD HD 8730M has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA MX230 has 256. However, the MX230 has a higher FP32 compute rate of 783.9 GFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M is the pick, as it wins the only head-to-head test by 3.6%. Users running legacy OpenCL applications may see a slight benefit from the AMD part despite its older architecture and slower clocks. However, this advantage is narrow, and the HD 8730M’s lower memory bandwidth and fill rates limit its overall capability.

For modern gaming and Vulkan-based applications, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the clear choice. It delivers a Vulkan score of 6414, has 67% more memory bandwidth, 46% higher FP32 throughput, and a much higher pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s versus 5.600 GPixel/s. The MX230’s newer Pascal architecture, 14 nm process, and higher clock speeds (1519 MHz vs 650 MHz base) give it a substantial edge in most real-world scenarios. The HD 8730M’s advantage in the OpenCL test does not compensate for its weaknesses in fill rate and bandwidth.

The data suggests that the MX230 is the better all-rounder for a laptop GPU, as it supports newer APIs and has higher raw performance in most metrics. The HD 8730M is a capable OpenCL performer but is held back by its DDR3 memory and low clock speeds. If you prioritize compute tasks that specifically use OpenCL, the AMD part is acceptable; otherwise, the MX230 is the superior choice for gaming and modern workloads. Both GPUs are end-of-life, so availability and driver support should be considered, but within the benchmark data, the MX230 wins on versatility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | AMD Radeon HD 8730M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | 650 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 5.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 16.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.9 GFLOPS | 537.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.25 GFLOPS | — |

| TDP | 10 W | — |

| Slot Width | IGP | — |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2013-03-31 |

| Predecessor | — | London |

| Successor | — | Gem System |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5739 | 5955 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 6414 | — |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6077 | 5955 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 35 | 34 |