AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile graphics processors: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 points. The result is a decisive 21.5% victory for the AMD part, the only head-to-head win logged for either product.

This margin is substantial in real-world terms. A 21.5% lead in an OpenCL compute workload suggests the AMD Radeon R5 M240 handles general-purpose GPU tasks, such as physics simulations or image processing filters, with noticeably more headroom than the NVIDIA part. The score difference is not a marginal edge; it is a clear generational gap in compute throughput, despite the NVIDIA chip being manufactured on a more advanced process node and carrying a much newer architecture.

However, the picture becomes more nuanced when looking at the broader benchmark landscape. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an additional database entry for Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 6414 points. While there is no direct head-to-head Vulkan comparison available, this score sits between the AMD OpenCL result and the NVIDIA OpenCL result. It indicates that under a different graphics API, the MX230 can perform closer to the R5 M240's level, though it still falls short of the AMD's OpenCL peak.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 averages 6975 points across its recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6077 points. That is a difference of roughly 898 points, or about 14.8% in favor of the AMD product when averaging all available data. The AMD part also holds a better position in the overall percentile ranking: it sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the MX230 sits at the 35th percentile. While both are entry-level mobile parts, the AMD chip ranks higher relative to the entire field.

The nearest rival data provides additional context for each product's standing. The Radeon R5 M240's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, which averages 7023 points, a delta of -0.7% relative to the AMD part. It is also within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946 points) and 0.8% of the NVIDIA T600 (7035 points). The AMD FirePro M5100 trails by 2.1%, averaging 6830 points. These tight margins show the R5 M240 sits in a cluster of roughly equivalent mobile GPUs, with no single rival more than 2.1% ahead or behind.

The MX230's rival cluster is similarly tight. Its nearest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A400, which matches its 6078 average score exactly with a delta of 0%. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits 0.7% higher at 6117 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is 0.5% lower at 6049 points. The AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1% at 6019 points. This grouping suggests the MX230 performs in a narrow band where no competitor holds a significant advantage, unlike the R5 M240's clearer 21.5% head-to-head win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only direct comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 21.5% (6975 vs 5739 points).

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 perform in Vulkan compared to its OpenCL result?

A: The MX230 scores 6414 points in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 675 points higher than its OpenCL score of 5739 points, indicating better performance under the Vulkan API.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 averages 6975 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6077 points, a difference of approximately 14.8% in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 ranks at the 39th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 ranks at the 35th percentile, making the AMD part higher in the overall distribution.

Q: Are there any rivals that closely match the MX230's average score?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA RTX A400 matches the MX230 exactly at 6078 points (0% delta), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits only 0.7% higher.

Q: Does the AMD R5 M240 have any rival that beats it by a significant margin?

A: No. Its closest rivals are all within 2.1%: the NVIDIA T600 is 0.8% higher, the GTX 680M is 0.7% higher, and the GTX 675M is 0.4% lower.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for compute-oriented workloads. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 in OpenCL by a 21.5% margin, and its average benchmark score is roughly 14.8% higher. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the R5 M240 is the stronger option based on recorded measurements.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230, however, offers a different set of advantages that are not captured by raw compute scores. Its Vulkan score of 6414 is higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting it handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently. The MX230 also carries a much newer architecture and a significantly more advanced manufacturing process, as detailed in the specification sections below. For tasks that leverage Vulkan or newer DirectX features, the MX230 may close the gap, though the database does not include a direct Vulkan comparison to confirm this.

The percentile rankings reinforce the AMD part's edge in overall performance. Sitting at the 39th percentile versus the MX230's 35th percentile, the R5 M240 is positioned higher in the global GPU hierarchy. The nearest rival data further supports this: the MX230's closest competitor matches its score exactly, while the R5 M240's nearest rivals are all tightly clustered, with none exceeding a 2.1% spread.

Users prioritizing maximum compute performance from the recorded benchmarks should select the AMD Radeon R5 M240. It wins the only head-to-head test, holds a higher average score, and ranks better against the full GPU field. Users who require Vulkan support, newer API compatibility, or lower power consumption should consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, as it records a stronger Vulkan score and carries a 10 W TDP, which is a documented advantage for thin-and-light laptops.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses a 14 nm node from Samsung. The transistor counts differ substantially: the AMD chip packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip contains 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm² for AMD versus 24.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA part. The MX230 runs at a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory speeds also differ: the AMD part uses 900 MHz memory with 1800 Mbps effective data rate, while the NVIDIA part uses 1502 MHz memory with 6 Gbps effective rate.

Memory configuration shows a clear NVIDIA advantage. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the memory bandwidth differs dramatically: 48.06 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 14.40 GB/s for AMD, a gap of more than 3x.

The compute unit layout varies. The AMD part has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the MX230 achieves higher fill rates: 24.50 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.50 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s for the AMD part.

Floating-point performance also favors NVIDIA. The MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part additionally records an FP16 figure of 12.25 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the AMD part has no recorded FP16 capability.

The bus interface differs: the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Power characteristics show the MX230 has a 10 W TDP and no power connectors, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP or power connector data. The MX230 is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the R5 M240 has no recorded slot width or display output information.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Jet" chip, and belongs to the Gem System generation under the R5 M200 family. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses Pascal architecture with the "GP108" chip, belonging to the GeForce MX 2xx generation.

The manufacturing approaches reflect different eras. AMD uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while NVIDIA uses a 14 nm process from Samsung. The newer process allows NVIDIA to pack more than 2.6 times the transistors into a die that is only about 32% larger in area. This density advantage translates into the higher clock speeds and improved fill rates documented above.

API support differences are notable. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating the MX230 can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the NVIDIA part supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The release timeline shows a significant gap. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 was released in September 2014, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 was released in February 2019, a span of roughly 4.5 years. The AMD part lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the MX230 has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

Both parts are marked as end-of-life in production status, meaning neither is currently manufactured. The architectural differences ultimately explain the performance characteristics: the older GCN 1.0 design on 28 nm relies on more shading units to achieve its compute lead, while the newer Pascal design on 14 nm achieves higher efficiency with fewer units, higher clocks, and faster memory.

The recorded data shows a trade-off: the AMD part wins in raw OpenCL compute and overall average score, while the NVIDIA part wins in memory bandwidth, clock speed, fill rate, and API modernity. These are complementary strengths that depend on the specific workload and application requirements.