NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M takes a narrow lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 dominates in Vulkan. The average benchmark score tells the larger story: the MX230 sits at 6077, which is 14.2% ahead of the 840M's 5322 average.

In the OpenCL test, the 840M scores 5764 against the MX230's 5739. That is a delta of only 0.4%, effectively a tie within measurement noise. The 840M edges ahead here, but the gap is so small that real-world applications would not show a consistent winner. Both GPUs land within the same performance class for OpenCL workloads.

The Vulkan test is where the MX230 pulls away decisively. It scores 6414 versus the 840M's 4880, a 31.4% advantage. That is a massive margin for a single API comparison. The MX230's Pascal architecture clearly handles Vulkan's modern rendering paths far better than the older Maxwell design in the 840M. For any game or application that uses Vulkan, the MX230 is the obvious choice.

Looking at the broader benchmark percentile, the MX230 ranks in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M sits in the 31st. The MX230's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0% delta), the Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% slower), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.7% faster). The 840M's neighbors are the GeForce 930A at 5317 (0.1% slower), the GTX 980M at 5308 (0.3% slower), and the GeForce 940M at 5284 (0.7% slower). These neighbor comparisons show both chips are competitive within their respective performance tiers.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The 840M uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the MX230 packs transistors much more densely. The MX230 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of only 13.2 million per mm².

The MX230's newer process allows it to run at much higher clocks. Its base clock is 1519 MHz with a boost to 1531 MHz. The 840M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. That is roughly a 48% higher base clock for the MX230. The memory clock also differs substantially: the MX230 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) while the 840M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The shading unit counts tell a more complex story. The 840M has 384 shading units, while the MX230 has 256. Despite fewer units, the MX230's higher clock speed brings its FP32 performance to 783.9 GFLOPS, close to the 840M's 863.2 GFLOPS. The MX230 also has a 1:64 FP16 ratio (12.25 GFLOPS), while the 840M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Texture mapping units are identical at 16 for both, but the ROP count differs: the MX230 has 16 ROPs versus the 840M's 8. This gives the MX230 a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the 840M. The texture rate also favors the MX230 at 24.50 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration differs in type and bandwidth. Both have 2 GB and a 64-bit bus, but the MX230 uses GDDR5 while the 840M uses DDR3. This produces a massive bandwidth gap: 48.06 GB/s for the MX230 versus 16.02 GB/s for the 840M. That is 3x more memory bandwidth for the newer chip, which matters for texture-heavy workloads.

Power consumption also diverges sharply. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the 840M is rated at 33 W. Both are integrated into laptops (IGP slot width) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The bus interface differs: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support shows a key difference. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_0) explains part of the Vulkan performance gap and affects newer game compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, while the 840M averages 5322. That is a 14.2% advantage for the MX230.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The MX230 scores 6414 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 4880 for the 840M. This represents a 31.4% lead for the MX230.

Q: Is the 840M faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the 840M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 5764 versus 5739 for the MX230, a 0.4% margin. This is a very narrow lead, likely within run-to-run variance.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MX230 has 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 memory, while the 840M has 16.02 GB/s using DDR3. The MX230 offers 3x the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX feature support?

A: The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The MX230 has a higher feature level, which matters for newer DirectX 12 titles.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the 840M is rated at 33 W. The MX230 is much more power-efficient, making it better suited for thin laptops.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly toward the MX230 for modern workloads. Its 31.4% Vulkan win is decisive, and its average score is 14.2% higher. The architecture advantages are substantial: 3x memory bandwidth, higher clocks, double the ROPs, and a much smaller process node. The DirectX 12 feature level is also better on the MX230.

The 840M retains one narrow win in OpenCL, but 0.4% is negligible. It also has more shading units (384 versus 256) and a higher FP32 peak (863.2 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS), but these do not translate into real-world wins in the recorded benchmarks. The 840M's higher TDP (33 W versus 10 W) does not buy it any meaningful performance advantage in the data.

For anyone choosing between these two for a laptop, the MX230 is the stronger pick unless the workload is exclusively OpenCL-based. The 840M's era is clearly past; its Maxwell architecture and DDR3 memory hold it back. The MX230's Pascal design, GDDR5 memory, and Vulkan efficiency make it the better GPU for gaming and modern applications. The only scenario where the 840M makes sense is if the software in question is heavily optimized for OpenCL and ignores Vulkan, but that is a shrinking niche.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

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

| Chip | GP108 | GM108S |

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.9 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 10 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | null | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | null | GeForce 900M |

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in any scenario that uses Vulkan. The 31.4% lead in that API makes it the clear choice for modern games built on Vulkan, which includes many recent titles and engines. Its 3x memory bandwidth also helps with high-resolution textures and any workload that saturates memory throughput. The 10 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-thin laptops where cooling and battery life are priorities. The higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s) benefits display output and any rasterization-heavy tasks.

The 840M wins only in the narrow OpenCL case, and even then by just 0.4%. Its 384 shading units and slightly higher FP32 peak (863.2 GFLOPS) give it a theoretical compute advantage, but the recorded benchmarks do not show this translating into a meaningful win. The 33 W TDP suggests it was designed for larger laptops with more cooling headroom, but that power budget does not deliver better results in the data. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface offers more bandwidth to the host system, which could help with some CPU-to-GPU transfer scenarios, but this is not reflected in the benchmark scores.

For practical use, the MX230 is the better all-rounder. The 840M is only defensible for legacy OpenCL applications that cannot use Vulkan or newer DirectX features. Given that the MX230 also has a newer release date (2019 versus 2014) and superior production process, it is the more future-proof option. The 840M's successor is the GeForce 900M series, and its predecessor is the GeForce 700M series, placing it firmly in an older generation. The MX230 has no recorded predecessor or successor, but its Pascal architecture aligns it with a more recent performance tier.