AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 represent two very different philosophies in mobile and small-form-factor graphics. The WX 4100 is a professional workstation card built on AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, while the MX230 is a low-power consumer laptop GPU based on NVIDIA’s Pascal design. The data shows a decisive performance gap in compute workloads, but the story is more nuanced when considering power, memory, and intended use cases. The WX 4100 leads in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, yet its 50 W TDP and single-slot profile contrast sharply with the MX230’s 10 W IGP-class integration.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. In the two shared benchmark tests, it dominates the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 by margins exceeding 190%. The WX 4100’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 17642 is 207.4% higher than the MX230’s 5739, and its Vulkan score of 18703 beats the MX230’s 6414 by 191.6%. This makes the WX 4100 the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated tasks like rendering, scientific computation, or any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan. Its professional lineage also shows in its API support, including DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, though the MX230 counters with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA MX230, by contrast, wins on efficiency and integration. Its 10 W TDP is one-fifth of the WX 4100’s 50 W, and it requires no power connector or dedicated slot, being classed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). This makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal headroom are paramount. The MX230 also has a higher boost clock (1531 MHz vs 1201 MHz) and pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s vs 19.22 GPixel/s), suggesting it may have an edge in simple 2D or pixel-bound operations, though no such benchmarks are shared. For everyday graphics, video playback, or light gaming, the MX230’s lower power draw and modern feature set (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1) make it a pragmatic choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different design goals. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses the GP108 chip on Pascal architecture, also on 14 nm but fabricated by Samsung. It has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, with a nearly identical density of 24.3M per mm². The process nodes match, but the chip designs diverge sharply.

Compute resources tell the tale. The WX 4100 features 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 4:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs explains the massive compute advantage. The WX 4100’s FP32 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS, compared to the MX230’s 783.9 GFLOPS. Memory architecture also differs: the WX 4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR5, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the MX230 has a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5, halving bandwidth to 48.06 GB/s. The WX 4100 also offers FP16 at 1:1 ratio (2.460 TFLOPS), while the MX230’s FP16 is severely cut to 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), indicating a workstation-focus on compute precision.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks are shared between the two cards, and both heavily favor the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100. In Geekbench OpenCL, the WX 4100 scores 17642 against the MX230’s 5739, a delta of 207.4%. This is not a marginal win but a threefold advantage, reflecting the WX 4100’s superior shading unit count and memory bandwidth. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains stark: 18703 vs 6414, a 191.6% difference. The WX 4100’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting strong driver optimization for modern compute APIs, while the MX230’s Vulkan score (6414) is only 11.8% above its OpenCL result.

The WX 4100 also has a broader benchmark portfolio, including Passmark tests for DirectX 9 (56), DirectX 10 (16), DirectX 11 (24), DirectX 12 (22), G2D (646), G3D (3699), and GPU compute (1475). The MX230 has no such data, so direct comparisons in legacy or DirectX workloads are impossible. However, the WX 4100’s Passmark G3D score of 3699 and its average benchmark score of 6330 suggest consistent mid-range performance. The MX230’s average score is 6077, only 4% lower, but this is skewed by its limited benchmark set. The head-to-head data leaves no doubt: for compute-heavy tasks, the WX 4100 is in a different league.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 manages 783.9 GFLOPS. This is a 3.1x advantage for the WX 4100.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The WX 4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR5, providing 96.00 GB/s. The MX230 has a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5, providing 48.06 GB/s. The WX 4100 offers double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has a 10 W TDP, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100’s 50 W. The MX230 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the WX 4100 is a single-slot card with a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX230 has a higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 1024 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has 256. This is a 4x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the release timeline?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 was released on 2016-11-09, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 came later on 2019-02-20. The WX 4100 is end-of-life with a successor (Radeon Pro Vega), while the MX230 has no listed predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1125 MHz | 1519 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1201 MHz | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 256 |

| TMUs | 64 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.22 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 76.86 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.460 TFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 50 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-11-09 | 2019-02-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | None |

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is overwhelmingly faster in compute benchmarks, winning both shared tests by over 190%. Its 4x shading unit count, 2x memory bandwidth, and 3.1x FP32 throughput make it the only choice for GPU-accelerated professional workloads. The WX 4100’s 4 GB VRAM doubles the MX230’s 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures. Its single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort outputs also suits multi-monitor workstation setups.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is not without merit. Its 10 W TDP is a fraction of the WX 4100’s 50 W, making it ideal for ultraportable laptops where power draw is critical. It also has higher clock speeds (1519 MHz base, 1531 MHz boost) and a better pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s), which could benefit 2D or light graphics tasks. The MX230’s newer API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1) gives it a slight future-proofing edge, and its IGP classification means no additional cooling or power infrastructure is needed.

For a user needing raw compute power in a compact workstation card, the WX 4100 is the clear winner. For a mobile user prioritizing battery life and integration over performance, the MX230 fits the bill. The benchmark results are unambiguous, but the use case decides which metric matters more. The WX 4100’s launch MSRP of 399 USD reflects its professional positioning, while the MX230’s lack of a launch MSRP hints at its role as an OEM component. Neither card is current, but the data shows they served very different markets.