GPU Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 are both end-of-life integrated or discrete-class mobile graphics solutions from different eras, with the MX230 arriving in 2019 and the P6300 in 2014. The benchmark data shows a narrow margin between them, with the MX230 holding a slight edge in the only common test, though architectural differences and API support tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300’s 5712. This gives the MX230 a 0.5% lead, a margin so small it falls within typical run-to-run variance. In practical terms, the data indicates near-identical OpenCL compute performance between these two GPUs, despite their very different designs and release dates.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the MX230’s average benchmark score across all tests is 6077, which includes its Geekbench Vulkan result of 6414 in addition to the OpenCL score. The P6300’s average score is 5712, as it only has the one OpenCL benchmark recorded. This puts the MX230 roughly 6.4% higher in average score, though this comparison is skewed by the Vulkan test that the Intel part does not have a result for.

The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the P6300 is at the 33rd percentile. Both are low-to-mid ranking parts, but the MX230 places slightly higher in the overall distribution. The nearest rivals for the MX230 include the NVIDIA RTX A400 with an average score of 6078 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (-0.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% delta). For the P6300, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5721 (-0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (0.4% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604 (1.9% delta).

What this data reveals is that the MX230 and P6300 occupy similar performance territory, but with different competitive landscapes. The MX230 sits between the Quadro P2000 and Radeon 760M, while the P6300 is bracketed by much older discrete GPUs like the GTX 550 Ti and GTX 670MX. This suggests the P6300 is competing against hardware from a previous generation, whereas the MX230 aligns with more recent mid-range parts.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could hardly be more different. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It contains 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per mm². In contrast, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip with Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. Transistor count and die size are not listed for the Intel part, making direct density comparisons impossible.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The MX230 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The P6300 uses System Shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the Intel part’s performance is heavily influenced by the host system’s RAM configuration, while the MX230 has fixed, dedicated memory resources.

Compute resources also differ in structure. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, but only 6 ROPs. This imbalance explains the pixel rate disparity: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s versus the P6300’s 4.800 GPixel/s. However, the P6300’s texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s exceeds the MX230’s 24.50 GTexel/s, indicating the Intel part is better suited to texture-heavy workloads but severely limited in pixel processing.

Clock speeds show a similar contrast. The MX230 runs at a base clock of 1519 MHz with a boost of 1531 MHz, while the P6300 operates at a much lower 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. Despite the P6300 having 50% more shading units, its lower clocks bring its FP32 performance to 614.4 GFLOPS, below the MX230’s 783.9 GFLOPS. The MX230 also lists FP16 performance at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the P6300 has no FP16 data recorded.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the P6300 is rated at 15 W. Both are listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width, with the MX230 using a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface and the P6300 using a Ring Bus. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the MX230 and "Motherboard Dependent" for the P6300, reflecting their different deployment contexts.

API support shows a generation gap. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. This means the MX230 is compatible with newer graphics features and higher API versions, which can matter for modern applications that leverage these interfaces.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the stronger part overall, but only marginally in raw compute. Its 0.5% OpenCL lead over the P6300 is negligible for most workloads, yet its additional Vulkan benchmark score of 6414 demonstrates capability that the Intel part simply cannot match, as no Vulkan result exists for the P6300. The MX230 also offers higher pixel rate, better FP32 throughput, and newer API support, all while consuming one-third less power (10 W vs 15 W).

The P6300’s strengths lie in texture throughput and shading unit count. With 48 TMUs and 384 shading units, it can handle texture-rich scenes better than the MX230 in theory, though its lower clock speeds and 4.8 GPixel/s pixel rate will bottleneck any rendering that requires heavy rasterization. Its System Shared memory model means performance depends entirely on the host platform, making it less predictable.

For users choosing between these two, the MX230 is the better pick for modern applications requiring Vulkan or newer DirectX features, and for any workload that benefits from dedicated memory bandwidth. The P6300 might suffice for older titles or texture-bound compute tasks, but its dated API support and low pixel rate limit its utility. Given that both are end-of-life products, the MX230’s higher percentile ranking (35 vs 33) and superior feature set make it the more capable choice according to benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has an average of 5712.

Q: What is the performance difference in the shared OpenCL test?

A: The MX230 scores 5739 versus the P6300’s 5712 in Geekbench OpenCL, giving the MX230 a 0.5% lead.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is limited to Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The P6300 has 384 shading units, compared to 256 on the MX230, though the MX230 achieves higher FP32 performance at 783.9 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the TDP values for these GPUs?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, and the P6300 has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Does the P6300 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the MX230 winning the only common benchmark, with the P6300 recording zero wins.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in: raw rasterization performance, with a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s compared to 4.800 GPixel/s on the P6300. It also wins in FP32 compute (783.9 GFLOPS vs 614.4 GFLOPS), API support (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 vs DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.4, Vulkan 1.0), and power efficiency with a 10 W TDP versus 15 W. The MX230’s dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, unlike the P6300’s system-dependent memory. Its Vulkan score of 6414 demonstrates capability in that API, which the P6300 lacks entirely.

Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins in: texture throughput, with 38.40 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s on the MX230. It also has more shading units (384 vs 256) and more TMUs (48 vs 16), which could benefit specific texture-heavy compute workloads. The P6300’s Ring Bus interface might integrate differently with Intel platforms, though benchmark data does not confirm any practical advantage. Its System Shared memory model eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM allocation, which could be simpler for certain system configurations, but the data shows this does not translate into a benchmark victory.

The benchmark results indicate the MX230 is the better-rounded GPU, with wins in the only direct comparison and a broader feature set that makes it more suitable for modern workloads. The P6300’s strengths are theoretical and confined to texture processing, which the data suggests does not overcome its other limitations.