NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins the only shared benchmark test. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5739 against 5317 for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, a 7.9% advantage.

Q: How do these two compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 6077. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078, a 0% difference. The GeForce 930A sits at the 31st percentile with an average score of 5317, and its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322, a 0.1% difference.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory on a 64-bit bus. The MX230 uses GDDR5 with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce 930A uses DDR3 with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the lower power draw?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, compared to 33 W for the GeForce 930A. Both are integrated-class parts (IGP) with no power connectors.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The MX230 was released on 2019-02-20, and the GeForce 930A was released on 2015-03-12.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing generations. The MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The GeForce 930A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This node difference is significant: the MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, while the GeForce 930A contains 1,020 million transistors on a slightly larger 77 mm² die. Transistor density reflects this: the MX230 reaches 24.3M / mm², whereas the GeForce 930A manages 13.2M / mm².

The compute configuration also differs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs but only 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the MX230 achieves higher peak rates: 783.9 GFLOPS FP32 versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the 930A. Pixel rate heavily favors the MX230 at 24.50 GPixel/s compared to 7.528 GPixel/s, while texture rates are closer at 24.50 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds explain part of this. The MX230 runs at a 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the GeForce 930A runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MX230 uses 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, and the 930A uses 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The MX230 supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GeForce 930A has no recorded FP16 capability. The MX230 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GeForce 930A uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 as the stronger part in every measured category. It wins the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test by 7.9%, has a higher average benchmark score (6077 versus 5317), and occupies a higher percentile position (35th versus 31st). It also draws much less power, 10 W versus 33 W, which matters for thin laptops and fanless designs. Anyone choosing between these two for a light gaming or multimedia laptop should take the MX230 if the option exists.

The GeForce 930A does retain one structural advantage: more shading units (384 versus 256) and more TMUs (24 versus 16). In workloads that scale with shader count rather than clock speed, the 930A could theoretically close the gap, but the recorded OpenCL result shows the MX230 still comes out ahead despite fewer cores. The 930A also has a wider PCIe link (x8 versus x4), but the MX230's higher memory bandwidth and newer architecture appear to compensate.

For legacy compatibility, the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). If an application requires 12_1 features, the MX230 is the only choice here. Both are end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The MX230 is the better performer, the more efficient part, and the more modern design. The 930A is only preferable if it is already installed in a system and the workload does not benefit from the MX230's advantages.

Specification Differences

• Process node: MX230 is 14 nm (Samsung); GeForce 930A is 28 nm (TSMC).
• Transistors: MX230 has 1,800 million; GeForce 930A has 1,020 million.
• Die size: MX230 is 74 mm²; GeForce 930A is 77 mm².
• Transistor density: MX230 is 24.3M / mm²; GeForce 930A is 13.2M / mm².
• Base clock: MX230 is 1519 MHz; GeForce 930A is 928 MHz.
• Boost clock: MX230 is 1531 MHz; GeForce 930A is 941 MHz.
• Memory clock: MX230 is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective); GeForce 930A is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).
• Memory type: MX230 uses GDDR5; GeForce 930A uses DDR3.
• Memory bandwidth: MX230 is 48.06 GB/s; GeForce 930A is 16.02 GB/s.
• Shading units: MX230 has 256; GeForce 930A has 384.
• TMUs: MX230 has 16; GeForce 930A has 24.
• ROPs: MX230 has 16; GeForce 930A has 8.
• Pixel rate: MX230 is 24.50 GPixel/s; GeForce 930A is 7.528 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: MX230 is 24.50 GTexel/s; GeForce 930A is 22.58 GTexel/s.
• FP32: MX230 is 783.9 GFLOPS; GeForce 930A is 722.7 GFLOPS.
• FP16: MX230 is 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64); GeForce 930A has none recorded.
• TDP: MX230 is 10 W; GeForce 930A is 33 W.
• Bus interface: MX230 is PCIe 3.0 x4; GeForce 930A is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• DirectX: MX230 is 12 (12_1); GeForce 930A is 12 (11_0).
• Release date: MX230 is 2019-02-20; GeForce 930A is 2015-03-12.
• Predecessor: GeForce 930A has the GeForce 800A as predecessor; MX230 has none recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The MX230 scores 5739, and the GeForce 930A scores 5317. That gives the MX230 a 7.9% victory. This is the only head-to-head result recorded, so it carries the full weight of the comparison.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this margin. The MX230's average score of 6077 places it within 0% of the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). It also sits 1% above the AMD Radeon 760M (6019) but 0.7% below the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117). The GeForce 930A's average score of 5317 sits 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322) and 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308). It is 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358).

What this means in practice: the MX230 performs in the same league as professional and modern iGPU parts, while the GeForce 930A sits among older mobile GeForce parts. The 7.9% head-to-head gap is consistent with the overall percentile difference (35th versus 31st). The MX230's higher clocks and memory bandwidth appear to be the deciding factors, since the GeForce 930A actually has more shading units and TMUs but still loses.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It leads in Geekbench OpenCL, average benchmark score, and percentile position. Its efficiency advantage is substantial: 10 W versus 33 W, which makes it the better choice for battery-powered laptops and compact systems where thermals are a constraint. Its GDDR5 memory at 48.06 GB/s versus DDR3 at 16.02 GB/s gives it a massive bandwidth advantage, which helps in texture-heavy workloads and higher-resolution framebuffers. The MX230 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), so it can run titles that require 12_1 feature levels. Its higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s) suggests it handles fill-rate-bound scenarios far better.

The GeForce 930A has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only structural advantages are the larger shader count (384 versus 256), more TMUs (24 versus 16), and the wider PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. These could matter in compute workloads that scale with raw shader throughput rather than clock speed, but the OpenCL result does not show that advantage materializing. The 930A's 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 is only slightly below the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS, so in FP32 compute tasks the two are close, but the MX230 still holds the edge. The 930A is also an older release (2015 versus 2019), so driver maturity and optimization for newer APIs favor the MX230.

For a practical recommendation: if the system is a modern thin-and-light laptop, the MX230 is the obvious pick due to lower power draw, higher bandwidth, and better DirectX feature support. If the system is an older machine where the GeForce 930A is already present, it remains usable for basic tasks and light gaming, but the recorded data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the MX230.