AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M445 in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5,739 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5,358. That gives the MX230 a 7.1% lead in this specific test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6,077, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 has an average score of 5,358, placing it in the 31st percentile.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The MX230 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M445 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 32.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has a boost clock of 1531 MHz, far above the AMD Radeon R7 M445's boost of 920 MHz.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The MX230 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the R7 M445 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP of the AMD Radeon R7 M445?

A: The database does not record a TDP for the R7 M445. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is listed at 10 W.

The Verdict

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the recorded data points clearly to the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 as the stronger performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, carries a higher average score across the database, and sits at a higher percentile rank. The AMD Radeon R7 M445, meanwhile, trails in raw compute and ranks lower overall.

The MX230 is the pick for anyone prioritizing compute performance and efficiency metrics. Its 10 W TDP makes it a low-power integrated part, and its 14 nm process gives it a substantial manufacturing advantage. The R7 M445 has no recorded TDP, but its 28 nm process and older GCN 3.0 architecture suggest it is the less efficient option.

However, the R7 M445 does offer double the memory capacity at 4 GB. If the workload depends more on capacity than bandwidth, that could matter. But the MX230's memory bandwidth is 50% higher at 48.06 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s, which typically matters more for GPU-bound tasks. The verdict is straightforward: the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the better all-around GPU based on the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5,739, and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5,358. That is a 7.1% margin in favor of NVIDIA.

Looking at average scores, the MX230 extends its lead further. Its average benchmark score is 6,077, while the R7 M445 averages 5,358. That is a gap of roughly 719 points, or about 13.4% when calculated from the R7 M445's baseline. The MX230's percentile rank of 35 versus 31 for the R7 M445 reinforces the same story.

The MX230's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6,078 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% ahead of the MX230), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (0.7% behind the MX230). This places the MX230 in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile and workstation parts. The R7 M445, by contrast, sits near the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370, 0.2% ahead of the AMD) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322, 0.7% behind). The R7 M445's rival list even includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5,308, which is 0.9% behind the AMD part in this database's scoring.

The pattern is consistent: the MX230 competes in a higher performance tier, while the R7 M445 lands among older entry-level parts. The 7.1% head-to-head win is not massive, but it is backed by the broader benchmark averages and percentile placements. In every recorded measurement, the MX230 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. AMD has more shaders and TMUs on paper, yet it loses in practice, which points to clock speed and architecture efficiency as the deciding factors.

Clock speeds heavily favor NVIDIA. The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost of 1531 MHz. The R7 M445 has a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 920 MHz. That is a 611 MHz difference in boost clocks, a massive gap that explains why the AMD part's higher shader count does not translate into higher performance.

Memory is another clear split. The MX230 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding 48.06 GB/s. The R7 M445 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the same 64-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s. NVIDIA delivers 50% more bandwidth with half the capacity.

The bus interface also differs. The MX230 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R7 M445 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The AMD part has double the PCIe lanes, though this is unlikely to matter much for an integrated mobile GPU. Both are listed as IGP slot width with portable device dependent display outputs.

DirectX support differs slightly: the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support favors NVIDIA, which lists Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for AMD.

The release dates are far apart. The MX230 launched on 2019-02-20, while the R7 M445 launched on 2016-05-14. Both are now end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The die size is 74 mm², and it packs 1,800 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm².

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die is 125 mm², significantly larger than the NVIDIA chip, yet it holds fewer transistors at 1,550 million. That works out to 12.4 million transistors per mm², roughly half the density of the MX230.

The transistor density difference is the clearest architectural story. NVIDIA crams more transistors into a smaller die on a more advanced node. This explains the efficiency gap and the 10 W TDP of the MX230. The R7 M445 has no recorded TDP, but its larger, older process node suggests it consumes more power.

Compute rates reflect the architectural gap. The MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R7 M445 delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. The MX230 is about 33% ahead in raw FP32 throughput. Pixel and texture rates also favor NVIDIA: 24.50 GPixel/s and 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230 versus 7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s for the R7 M445. The pixel rate difference is particularly stark, with NVIDIA delivering more than triple the fill rate.

FP16 performance shows a notable philosophical difference. The MX230 manages only 12.25 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio compared to its FP32 rate. The R7 M445 delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP16, a full 1:1 ratio. For workloads that lean on half-precision math, the AMD part has a theoretical advantage, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates this.

Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are raster-focused mobile parts. The MX230's generation is listed as GeForce MX (2xx), while the R7 M445 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation. The R7 M445's predecessor is listed as Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The MX230 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The NVIDIA part's API support is more modern, with Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for AMD. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the DirectX feature level gives NVIDIA a slight edge at 12_1 versus 12_0. In the end, the architecture comparison is a textbook example of process node and clock speed advantages overcoming a raw shader count deficit.