Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 and NVIDIA GeForce MX230 are both end-of-life, low-power graphics solutions aimed at laptops, but they serve different masters. The data shows a clear performance leader in the OpenCL benchmark, but the architectural and feature differences tell a more nuanced story. The P750 is an integrated GPU with a high core count and fast fill rates, while the MX230 is a discrete part with its own dedicated memory and higher clock speeds. Your choice depends on whether you prioritize raw compute throughput or the benefits of dedicated VRAM and a more energy-efficient design.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the faster part. It wins the only head-to-head test available, scoring 6,554 in Geekbench OpenCL against the MX230's 5,739, a decisive 14.2% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it places the P750 in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 sits in the 35th. The P750 also edges out its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612, -0.9%) and the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581, -0.4%), though it trails the R7 M460 by a hair. The MX230, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, 0% delta) and beats the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, 1% delta).

For a user prioritizing raw compute in applications that leverage OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the pick. Its higher shading unit count and dramatically higher texture and pixel fill rates translate directly into a measurable lead. However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 should not be dismissed. Its 10 W TDP is one-third lower than the P750's 15 W, and it has its own 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, which is a fundamental advantage in real-world gaming where system memory bandwidth is a bottleneck. If battery life and dedicated memory are your priorities, the MX230 is the more practical choice, even if it loses the synthetic benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process node, part of the Rocket Lake generation with a Generation 12.1 architecture. It uses a Ring Bus interface and shares system memory, with its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This design is fundamentally limited by the speed of the host system's RAM, but it allows for a much larger core configuration.

In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is a discrete GPU based on the GP108 chip, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It uses the older Pascal architecture, which is less efficient per core than Intel's newer design but is optimized for dedicated memory. The MX230 has its own 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 64-bit bus and 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth, a massive advantage over the P750's system-dependent setup. The MX230 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, whereas the P750 relies on the Ring Bus.

The core configurations are starkly different. Both have 256 shading units, but the P750 packs 64 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 32 raster output units (ROPs), while the MX230 has only 16 of each. This explains the P750's massive lead in texture rate (83.20 GTexel/s vs 24.50 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (41.60 GPixel/s vs 24.50 GPixel/s). However, the MX230 compensates with much higher clock speeds: a 1,519 MHz base and 1,531 MHz boost, compared to the P750's 350 MHz base and 1,300 MHz boost. The MX230's boost clock is a full 231 MHz higher than the P750's, which helps it close the gap in raw FP32 compute (783.9 GFLOPS vs 665.6 GFLOPS) despite having far fewer TMUs and ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear win for the Intel UHD Graphics P750 in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,554 is 14.2% higher than the MX230's 5,739, and its fill rates are more than double in texture throughput and nearly double in pixel throughput. This suggests the P750 is better suited for tasks like video encoding, image processing, or any application that can utilize its 256 shading units and high TMU count. Its FP32 performance of 665.6 GFLOPS, while lower than the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS, is less relevant in synthetic OpenCL tests that may also stress fill rates.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins on efficiency and memory architecture. Its 10 W TDP is 33% lower than the P750's 15 W, making it the better choice for ultra-portable laptops where battery life is paramount. The dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth is a critical advantage for gaming, as it eliminates the need to share bandwidth with the CPU. The MX230's higher clock speeds also mean it can sustain its performance more consistently, whereas the P750's performance is entirely dependent on the system memory speed.

For gaming specifically, the MX230 is the safer bet based on its dedicated VRAM and higher FP32 throughput. The Intel P750 may win synthetic benchmarks, but in real game engines that rely on memory bandwidth and driver optimization, the MX230's dedicated memory will likely provide a smoother experience. The data cannot confirm this, but the architecture strongly implies it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6,554, which is 14.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX230's 5,739. The P750 also holds a higher overall percentile rank at 38th versus the MX230's 35th.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 have more memory?

A: Yes. The MX230 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM for both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has a boost clock of 1,531 MHz, which is 231 MHz higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 1,300 MHz boost. The MX230's base clock of 1,519 MHz is also far higher than the P750's 350 MHz base.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a TDP of 15 W. The MX230 is therefore 33% more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units (TMUs)?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 64 TMUs, which is four times the 16 TMUs found on the NVIDIA GeForce MX230. This translates to a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s for the P750 versus 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes. The production status for both the Intel UHD Graphics P750 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is listed as "End-of-life." The MX230 has a release date of February 20, 2019, while the P750's release date is not specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive victory for the Intel UHD Graphics P750. The P750 scores 6,554 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5,739 points, giving the Intel part a 14.2% lead. This is a substantial margin within low-power GPUs, where a few percent often separates competitors.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The P750's score of 6,554 places it just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581) and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612), while beating the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513) by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6,493) by 0.9%. This shows the P750 is competitive with mid-range discrete GPUs from a few generations ago.

The MX230's score of 5,739 is not directly compared to the P750's rivals, but its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, 0.5% delta), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, -0.7% delta). The MX230's average benchmark score is 6,077, which is notably lower than the P750's 6,554 average.

The P750's 14.2% lead in OpenCL is likely due to its far superior fill rates. With 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, the P750 can process texture and pixel data much faster than the MX230's 16 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Even though the MX230 has a higher FP32 compute rating (783.9 GFLOPS vs 665.6 GFLOPS), the OpenCL benchmark appears to reward the P750's parallel throughput capabilities, especially in memory-bound operations where the P750 can leverage its 256 shading units more effectively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly across nearly every specification, reflecting their fundamentally different designs.

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P750 | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 |

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

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not specified | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 1,519 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,300 MHz | 1,531 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 256 |

| TMUs | 64 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.20 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 15 W | 10 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

The most critical differences are the memory configuration and the core layout. The MX230's dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage for gaming, while the P750's system-shared memory is a bottleneck. However, the P750's 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs give it a 3.4x advantage in texture rate and a 1.7x advantage in pixel rate, which explains its OpenCL victory. The MX230's higher clock speeds (1,531 MHz boost vs 1,300 MHz) help it achieve higher FP32 throughput (783.9 vs 665.6 GFLOPS), but this does not overcome the P750's fill rate dominance in the benchmark. The MX230's FP16 performance is negligible (12.25 GFLOPS) compared to the P750's 1,331.2 GFLOPS, but this is unlikely to matter for most users. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator.