Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the clear choice for any workload that depends on raw graphics compute. The recorded data shows it wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a 12.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 14% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 6077 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at 5370 and the 31st percentile. For users who need consistent GPU acceleration in applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the MX230 is the superior part.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630, however, is not without purpose. Its 15 W TDP, while higher than the MX230's 10 W, is paired with system-shared memory and a Ring Bus interface, which makes it a natural fit for integrated platforms where discrete graphics is not an option. The data shows it trails the MX230 by a meaningful margin, but it remains competitive with older discrete mobile GPUs such as the NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon R7 M445. If the platform dictates integrated graphics, the P630 is a serviceable choice; if the workload is graphics-heavy, the MX230 wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural families and are built for different roles. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 uses the GP108 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Comet Lake GT2 chip on Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The MX230 runs a base clock of 1519 MHz with a boost of 1531 MHz, while the P630 starts at a much lower 350 MHz base and boosts to 1200 MHz. Memory configuration is also a fundamental split. The MX230 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth and 6 Gbps effective memory speed. The P630 uses system-shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the MX230's memory performance is fixed and predictable, whereas the P630's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM.

The compute units tell the story of the performance gap. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, but only 3 ROPs. This unusual ROP count severely limits the P630's pixel throughput: 3.600 GPixel/s versus 24.50 GPixel/s for the MX230. Texture rate is closer, with the P630 at 28.80 GTexel/s and the MX230 at 24.50 GTexel/s, but the MX230 still wins on overall FP32 compute with 783.9 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. The FP16 figures are inverted: the MX230 delivers only 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the P630 delivers 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating the Intel part has better half-precision throughput.

Power and interface differ as well. The MX230 is rated at 10 W with no power connectors and uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The P630 is rated at 15 W and uses a Ring Bus interface, reflecting its integrated nature. Both are listed as IGP slot width and both are end-of-life products. The MX230 was released on February 20, 2019, while the P630 followed on May 12, 2020.

API support is nearly identical for DirectX and OpenGL, with both at DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs slightly: the MX230 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the P630 supports Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs are platform dependent for both, with the MX230 listed as portable device dependent and the P630 as motherboard dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in every measured benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5739 against the P630's 5111, a 12.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 6414 against 5628, a 14% advantage. These are not narrow margins; they represent a consistent performance tier gap across different compute APIs.

The data suggests the MX230 is the better choice for GPU-accelerated applications that use OpenCL or Vulkan, such as compute workloads, video encoding acceleration, and lighter graphics tasks. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth means it does not compete with the CPU for system memory, which can be a bottleneck in integrated designs. Its 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than 70% higher than the P630's 460.8 GFLOPS, making it the stronger part for general compute.

The P630 wins in one specific area from the recorded data: FP16 throughput. At 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, it is dramatically ahead of the MX230's 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. This could matter for workloads that rely on half-precision math, but the benchmark results do not include a FP16-specific test, so the real-world impact is not verified by the measurements.

For users constrained to an integrated GPU, the P630's performance is comparable to older discrete mobile graphics. Its average score of 5370 is within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322), and it is 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416). The MX230, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078) and Quadro P2000 (6049), with deltas of 0% and 0.5% respectively. The MX230 is also 0.7% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6019).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5370. The MX230 also sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the P630's 31st percentile.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each GPU?

A: The MX230 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The P630 uses system-shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: How do the two compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: The MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the P630 delivers 460.8 GFLOPS. The MX230 is the stronger part for standard single-precision workloads.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 have any advantage in compute throughput?

A: Yes, in FP16 performance. The P630 delivers 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the MX230 delivers only 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. No benchmark in the database directly tests FP16 performance, however.

Q: What are the power ratings for these GPUs?

A: The MX230 is rated at 10 W and requires no power connectors. The P630 is rated at 15 W. Both are integrated-class parts with IGP slot width.

Q: Which GPU is closer to its nearest rivals in performance?

A: The MX230's nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A400, has an average score of 6078, a delta of 0%. The P630's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M445, has an average score of 5358, a delta of 0.2%. Both parts sit very close to their nearest competitors, but the MX230's rival set includes professional GPUs with higher absolute scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the MX230 wins both. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the MX230 at 5739 and the P630 at 5111, a 12.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the MX230 at 6414 and the P630 at 5628, a 14% advantage. The MX230's Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, while the P630's scores are more consistent: 5111 OpenCL and 5628 Vulkan, a difference of 10.1%.

The OpenCL result is particularly informative because it reflects general compute performance across a broad set of workloads. A 12.3% lead indicates that the MX230's dedicated memory and higher FP32 throughput translate directly into measurable performance. The Vulkan result amplifies this lead to 14%, which suggests the MX230's architecture scales better with the Vulkan API. The P630's Vulkan score is still respectable, but it cannot close the gap.

The pixel rate difference is dramatic and worth noting. The MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s, more than six times the P630's 3.600 GPixel/s. This is a direct consequence of the ROP count: 16 ROPs for the MX230 versus 3 for the P630. Any workload that involves rasterization, fill-rate-limited effects, or high-resolution rendering will favor the MX230 heavily. The texture rate, on the other hand, is close: 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230 versus 28.80 GTexel/s for the P630. The P630's extra TMUs (24 versus 16) give it a slight edge in texture-heavy scenarios, but the benchmark data does not include a texture-specific test, so this advantage is not confirmed by measurements.

The FP16 disparity is the largest architectural difference on paper. The P630's 921.6 GFLOPS of FP16 throughput is 75 times higher than the MX230's 12.25 GFLOPS. This is a generational design choice: Pascal has weak FP16 support, while Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture treats FP16 as a first-class compute path. However, the database's benchmarks do not expose this difference, and the overall scores place the MX230 clearly ahead. Users with FP16-heavy workloads should note the P630's theoretical advantage, but they should also recognize that no recorded benchmark confirms it.

The average benchmark scores place the two parts in different competitive brackets. The MX230's 6077 average puts it in the same class as the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078) and the Quadro P2000 (6049), both with deltas near zero. The P630's 5370 average aligns it with the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322). This means the MX230 competes with professional and upper-mainstream GPUs, while the P630 competes with older entry-level discrete parts. The MX230's 35th percentile versus the P630's 31st percentile reflects this positioning.

In summary, the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The MX230 wins both tests, wins the average score comparison, and holds a decisive advantage in pixel rate and FP32 compute. The P630's only recorded advantages are FP16 throughput and texture rate, neither of which is validated by the benchmark suite. For any measured workload, the MX230 is the faster GPU.