NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains two benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Each GPU wins one test, and the margins tell a clear story about their respective strengths.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 940M scores 6018, while the MX230 scores 5739. That gives the 940M a 4.6% advantage. The margin is modest, but it reflects the 940M's larger compute configuration. The MX230 trails by roughly 279 points, which aligns with the 940M's higher raw shading throughput. In this workload, the older GPU holds its ground.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome dramatically. The MX230 scores 6414, while the 940M scores 4549. That is a 41% lead for the MX230. The difference is substantial, almost 1900 points. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the MX230's Pascal architecture handles it far more efficiently than the Maxwell-based 940M. The 940M's Vulkan result is its weaker showing by a wide margin.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the MX230 posts 6077, which places it in the 35th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The 940M averages 5284, landing in the 31st percentile. The MX230's average is about 793 points higher. That gap is driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result, since the OpenCL scores are close.

The nearest rivals for each GPU reinforce the picture. The MX230 sits near the NVIDIA RTX A400, which averages 6078 with a 0% delta, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, which averages 6117 with a -0.7% delta relative to the MX230. The 940M sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which averages 5308 with a -0.4% delta, and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, which averages 5317 with a -0.6% delta. In other words, the MX230 competes in a higher performance tier than the 940M, despite the latter's larger core count.

One benchmark win each does not mean parity. The MX230's Vulkan advantage is nearly nine times larger than the 940M's OpenCL advantage. Any application that uses Vulkan will favor the MX230 decisively. OpenCL applications will slightly favor the 940M, but the margin is small enough that other system factors could easily tip the balance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6077, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M averages 5284. The MX230 leads by roughly 793 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The MX230 scores 6414, beating the 940M's 4549 by 41%. This is the largest margin in either direction between the two.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GeForce 940M scores 6018, ahead of the MX230's 5739, a 4.6% difference. The 940M wins that test, but by a narrow margin.

Q: What are the percentile rankings of these GPUs?

A: The MX230 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the 940M sits in the 31st percentile.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The MX230 has a memory bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s, compared to the 940M's 14.40 GB/s. The MX230's GDDR5 memory operates at 6 Gbps effective, while the 940M's DDR3 memory operates at 1800 Mbps effective.

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

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The MX230 was released on 2019-02-20, and the 940M on 2015-03-12.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing processes. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The 940M uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The process difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. That translates directly into transistor density. The MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a density of 24.3 million transistors per mm². The 940M has 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, which works out to 12.6 million transistors per mm². The MX230 fits nearly twice as many transistors per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ in an interesting way. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 940M has twice the shading units and twice the TMUs. However, the MX230 compensates with higher clocks. Its base clock is 1519 MHz with a boost of 1531 MHz, while the 940M runs at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. The MX230's clocks are roughly 50% higher, which narrows the raw compute gap.

Pixel and texture rates reflect this trade-off. The MX230 achieves a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.50 GTexel/s. The 940M achieves 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. So the MX230 leads in pixel throughput, while the 940M leads in texture throughput. Floating-point performance tells a similar story: the 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32, while the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS. The 940M has a raw FP32 advantage of about 43%, but the MX230 also supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a feature the 940M does not list.

Memory architecture also differs. Both use a 64 bit bus, but the MX230 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, producing 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940M uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, producing 14.40 GB/s. That is a 3.3x bandwidth advantage for the MX230. Both have 2 GB of memory.

API support shows a subtle but real difference. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the MX230 partially explains its Vulkan advantage.

Power and physical specs differ sharply. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W and is an IGP with no power connectors. The 940M has a TDP of 75 W and comes as an MXM Module. The bus interfaces also differ: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the 940M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GP108 (MX230) versus GM107 (940M)
• Architecture: Pascal versus Maxwell
• Process node: 14 nm versus 28 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 1,800 million versus 1,870 million
• Die size: 74 mm² versus 148 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.3M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: 1519 MHz versus 1020 MHz
• Boost clock: 1531 MHz versus 1098 MHz
• Memory clock: 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective versus 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 512
• TMUs: 16 versus 32
• ROPs: 16 in both, so no difference
• Pixel rate: 24.50 GPixel/s versus 17.57 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 24.50 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s
• FP32: 783.9 GFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) versus not listed
• TDP: 10 W versus 75 W
• Slot width: IGP versus MXM Module
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Release date: 2019-02-20 versus 2015-03-12
• Predecessor: none listed versus GeForce 800M
• Successor: none listed versus GeForce 10 Mobile
• Generation: GeForce MX (2xx) versus GeForce 900M

Fields that match: memory size (2 GB), bus width (64 bit), ROPs (16), power connectors (none), display outputs (portable device dependent), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), production status (end-of-life), and launch MSRP (not listed for either).

The Verdict

The benchmark data does not crown a single winner. Instead, it splits cleanly by workload. The GeForce 940M wins Geekbench OpenCL by 4.6%, scoring 6018 to 5739. The GeForce MX230 wins Geekbench Vulkan by 41%, scoring 6414 to 4549. One win each, but the magnitudes differ enormously.

The MX230's average benchmark score of 6077 places it in the 35th percentile, above the 940M's 5284 and 31st percentile. The MX230 also offers dramatically higher memory bandwidth, 48.06 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, and far lower power draw at 10 W versus 75 W. Its modern Pascal architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and delivers a Vulkan result that is simply in another class from the 940M.

The 940M does retain advantages. Its FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS exceeds the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s beats the MX230's 24.50 GTexel/s. It has double the shading units and double the TMUs. In OpenCL workloads that leverage these resources, the 940M edges ahead.

For users running Vulkan-based applications, the MX230 is the clear choice. The 41% lead is decisive. For users running OpenCL-based workloads, the 940M offers a slight edge, but the margin is small enough that the MX230's other advantages, bandwidth, efficiency, and API support, could matter more in practice. The MX230 is the better overall part based on average score and percentile, but the 940M is not obsolete in every scenario.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX230: The MX230 wins in Vulkan workloads by a wide margin, 6414 versus 4549, a 41% lead. It also wins on average benchmark score, 6077 versus 5284. It offers higher memory bandwidth at 48.06 GB/s, a smaller and denser 14 nm process, a higher pixel rate at 24.50 GPixel/s, and a much lower TDP of 10 W. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and FP16 capability give it a modern feature set. Any application that uses Vulkan, or any workload that benefits from memory bandwidth, will favor the MX230. Its 35th percentile ranking also places it above the 940M in the overall distribution.

NVIDIA GeForce 940M: The 940M wins in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 6018 versus 5739, a 4.6% edge. It has double the shading units, 512 versus 256, and double the TMUs, 32 versus 16. Its FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS exceeds the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s beats the MX230's 24.50 GTexel/s. For OpenCL compute tasks that scale with raw shading and texture throughput, the 940M is the stronger option. Its larger die, 148 mm² versus 74 mm², and higher transistor count, 1,870 million versus 1,800 million, reflect a more physically substantial processor. The 940M also has a defined successor, GeForce 10 Mobile, and a predecessor, GeForce 800M, while the MX230 lists neither.

The choice depends on the workload. Vulkan favors the MX230 decisively. OpenCL favors the 940M narrowly. Modern API support and efficiency favor the MX230. Raw compute resources favor the 940M. Both GPUs are end-of-life, so availability and system compatibility will ultimately decide which one appears in a given laptop. The recorded data shows a split verdict, with the MX230 holding the stronger overall position.