AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in this comparison. Across the two benchmark tests available, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins both, with the margin varying significantly depending on the workload. The average benchmark score for the MX230 is 6077, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails at 5161, a gap of roughly 18%.

The closest contest comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the MX230 scores 5739 against the R7 M260X's 5690, a difference of just 0.9%. This is a narrow margin, well within the kind of run-to-run variation seen in mobile graphics parts. The data suggests that in raw compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, these two GPUs are essentially peers, with the MX230 holding only a slight edge. For context, the MX230's nearest rivals around this performance level include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117, while the R7 M260X sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063.

The story changes dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The MX230 posts a score of 6414, while the R7 M260X manages only 4631. This translates to a 38.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is a substantial, decisive lead. The R7 M260X's Vulkan result is far weaker relative to its OpenCL showing, suggesting that the older GCN architecture struggles with the Vulkan API's modern driver and rendering paths. The MX230's Vulkan score is also notably higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating that the Pascal architecture scales better with the lower-level API. This 38.5% delta is the single largest performance gap in the head-to-head data, and it heavily influences the overall average.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the MX230 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M260X is at the 30th. This means the MX230 performs better than a larger share of the overall GPU landscape, reinforcing the idea that it is the more capable part despite both being entry-level mobile solutions. The wins tally is 2 for the MX230 and 0 for the R7 M260X, a clean sweep, but as the OpenCL result shows, the story is not one of total dominance across every scenario.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the winner in both recorded test categories. There is no test in the database where the AMD Radeon R7 M260X comes out ahead.

The MX230's advantage is most pronounced in Vulkan-based workloads. The 38.5% lead in that test suggests that applications or games using Vulkan will see a significant performance benefit from the NVIDIA part. This is likely due to a combination of architectural efficiency and driver maturity for the Vulkan API. For users running modern titles or software that leverages Vulkan, the MX230 is clearly the stronger choice.

The OpenCL result is closer, with the MX230 leading by only 0.9%. In this scenario, the two GPUs are effectively interchangeable in performance. Workloads that are heavily dependent on OpenCL compute, such as certain productivity applications or older game engines, will show very little difference between the two. Users in that specific niche would not be making a major mistake by choosing either part, based on the raw numbers.

The R7 M260X does not have a single category where it wins, but its relative strength is in OpenCL. Its score of 5690 is much closer to the MX230's 5739 than its Vulkan score is. This indicates that the R7 M260X is better suited to compute tasks that use the older API standard. However, since no test shows an outright win for the AMD part, the data cannot support a use case where it is the recommended choice over the MX230. The MX230 is the all-around performer, with its Vulkan dominance being the key differentiator.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is based on the GP108 chip, using the Pascal architecture, and is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node difference is significant, as the 14 nm process allows for much higher transistor density and clock speeds at lower power.

The transistor counts reflect the process disparity. The MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors into a die size of 74 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The R7 M260X has 950 million transistors on a slightly larger die of 77 mm², giving it a density of just 12.3 million per mm². The MX230 has nearly twice the transistor density, which enables its higher clock speeds and more efficient compute per watt.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The MX230 runs at a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The R7 M260X is significantly slower, with a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost of 715 MHz. This more than doubles the operating frequency of the NVIDIA part. The memory clocks also differ, with the MX230 running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and the R7 M260X at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are configured differently. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s. The R7 M260X has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which gives it a higher bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the MX230's higher memory clock helps close the gap, but the AMD part still holds a bandwidth advantage of roughly 33%.

Compute resources are laid out in contrasting ways. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R7 M260X has more shading units at 384 and more TMUs at 24, but only 8 ROPs. The MX230's pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s, far ahead of the R7 M260X's 5.720 GPixel/s. The texture rates are closer, with the MX230 at 24.50 GTexel/s and the R7 M260X at 17.16 GTexel/s. In terms of raw FP32 compute, the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS, while the R7 M260X manages 549.1 GFLOPS, a 43% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

The MX230 also supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the R7 M260X has no recorded FP16 capability. The bus interface differs, with the MX230 using PCIe 3.0 x4 and the R7 M260X using PCIe 3.0 x8. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the R7 M260X has no TDP recorded. The MX230 is noted as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width, while the R7 M260X has no slot width data. Both are end-of-life products, with the MX230 released in February 2019 and the R7 M260X in December 2015.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 as the superior part. Its average benchmark score of 6077 is 17.7% higher than the R7 M260X's 5161. It wins both head-to-head tests, including a massive 38.5% margin in Vulkan. The MX230 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 35 versus 30, indicating it outperforms a larger portion of the GPU market.

Users who rely on Vulkan-based applications should strongly prefer the MX230. The performance gap in that test is too large to ignore. Even in OpenCL, where the R7 M260X is relatively strongest, the MX230 still comes out ahead, albeit by a slim 0.9%. There is no benchmark scenario in the recorded data where the AMD part is the better choice.

The R7 M260X is a much older design, released years earlier, and its GCN 1.0 architecture shows its age in the Vulkan test. The MX230's Pascal architecture, newer process node, and higher clock speeds give it a clear advantage in modern API workloads. For anyone choosing between these two based on the database measurements, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the only logical pick. The R7 M260X is competitive only in legacy OpenCL tasks, and even then, it does not secure a win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5161.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan test?

A: The MX230 scores 6414 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 38.5% higher than the R7 M260X's 4631.

Q: Is the R7 M260X competitive in any benchmark?

A: The R7 M260X is closest in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5690 versus the MX230's 5739, a difference of only 0.9%.

Q: What are the memory capacities of the two GPUs?

A: The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M260X has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 M260X has a higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, compared to the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, due to its wider 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The MX230 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm², while the R7 M260X has a density of 12.3 million per mm².

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | AMD Radeon R7 M260X |

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

| 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 |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | 620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 715 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.9 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not available |

| TDP | 10 W | Not recorded |

| 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 | 2015-12-05 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Solar System |

| Successor | Not recorded | Polaris Mobile |