NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but narrow victory for the older NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M over the newer NVIDIA GeForce MX230. In the single available Geekbench OpenCL comparison, the GT 555M scores 6493 against the MX230's 5739, a 13.1% advantage. This is a decisive margin in a compute workload, but the context matters: the GT 555M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 is close behind at the 35th percentile.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the GT 555M is the data-backed choice. However, the MX230 counters with a substantially newer architecture, a much lower power envelope, and a superior API feature set. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 555M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed.

The MX230 also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and nearly 67% higher memory bandwidth (48.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s), which could matter in texture-heavy or memory-bound scenarios even if the raw compute score lags. The GT 555M is the pick for pure OpenCL number-crunching; the MX230 is the pick for modern API compatibility and efficiency. Neither card ranks highly overall, but the choice hinges on whether compute speed or platform modernity matters more.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it favors the GT 555M by a meaningful 13.1%. The GT 555M posts 6493 points, while the MX230 manages 5739. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial gap that indicates the Fermi-based chip retains an edge in this specific compute workload despite being roughly eight years older in release timing.

To contextualize the GT 555M's score, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M at 6481 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (0.3% behind). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M, which scores 6513 (0.3% ahead), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 (0.9% ahead). These are tight margins, showing the GT 555M is competitive with a range of mid-tier and integrated solutions.

The MX230's 5739 score places it near the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0% delta, effectively tied) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% ahead). It trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.7% ahead) but leads the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% behind). The MX230's performance neighborhood is consistent with low-power discrete and high-end integrated graphics, whereas the GT 555M's neighborhood includes larger, higher-power mobile discrete chips.

The win count reflects this single test: the GT 555M takes 1 win, and the MX230 takes 0. There is no Vulkan head-to-head data, even though the MX230 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414 on its own. That score is close to the GT 555M's OpenCL result, but without a direct comparison, it cannot be used to declare a winner in that API.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The GT 555M is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The MX230 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink is dramatic: the MX230 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The GT 555M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding only 4.9 million per mm².

The compute resources differ substantially. The GT 555M has 144 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer TMUs, the MX230 achieves a higher texture rate of 24.50 GTexel/s versus the GT 555M's 14.16 GTexel/s, thanks to its much higher clock speeds.

The FP32 compute figures tell a stark story: the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS, which is more than double the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS. Yet in the OpenCL benchmark, the GT 555M wins. This suggests the benchmark is sensitive to other factors, perhaps memory latency or driver optimization, rather than raw peak throughput. The MX230 also lists FP16 performance of 12.25 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, which is negligible and not a meaningful advantage.

Pixel rates follow the same pattern as texture rates: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s, while the GT 555M manages only 3.540 GPixel/s. The MX230's base clock is 1519 MHz with a boost to 1531 MHz, while the GT 555M has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The MX230's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GT 555M uses DDR3 memory with a capacity of 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 uses GDDR5 memory with 2 GB capacity on a 64-bit bus, providing 48.06 GB/s. The MX230's narrower bus is compensated by faster memory technology and higher clocks, resulting in superior bandwidth.

The power envelopes are vastly different. The GT 555M has a TDP of 35 W, while the MX230 consumes only 10 W. The MX230 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the GT 555M has no slot width or power connector data listed. This makes the MX230 far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the GT 555M belongs to a generation of bulkier gaming notebooks.

Bus interfaces also differ: the GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x4 link width may limit peak throughput compared to the x16 link on the older card. In practice, this is unlikely to matter for the workloads these GPUs handle, but it is a structural difference.

API support favors the MX230. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 555M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GT 555M belongs to the GeForce 500M generation with a predecessor of GeForce 400M and a successor of GeForce 600M. The MX230 is in the GeForce MX (2xx) generation with no listed predecessor or successor. The GT 555M was released in 2011, and the MX230 followed in 2019.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M scores 6493 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce MX230's score of 5739.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The GT 555M has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 555M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GT 555M has a TDP of 35 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W. The MX230 is classified as an IGP with no power connectors, making it significantly more power-efficient.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of compute throughput?

A: The MX230 has a higher FP32 rating at 783.9 GFLOPS, compared to the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS. The MX230 also has higher pixel and texture rates at 24.50 GPixel/s and 24.50 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 3.540 GPixel/s and 14.16 GTexel/s for the GT 555M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX230 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm², based on 1,800 million transistors in a 74 mm² die. The GT 555M has a density of 4.9 million per mm², based on 1,170 million transistors in a 238 mm² die.

# Where Each One Wins

The GT 555M wins the only direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outperforms the MX230 by 13.1%, which is a clear victory in compute-heavy applications. This makes it the better choice for users who rely on OpenCL-accelerated tasks, such as certain scientific simulations, video encoding filters, or GPU compute in legacy software. Its 128-bit memory bus and higher transistor count on a larger die may also provide advantages in specific workloads that favor memory parallelism over raw bandwidth.

The MX230 wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 10 W TDP versus the GT 555M's 35 W means it can be deployed in ultraportable laptops without active cooling or large batteries. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth offers more capacity and higher bandwidth, which benefits modern games and applications that require larger texture pools. The MX230 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with contemporary game engines and graphics APIs that the GT 555M cannot fully utilize.

In terms of raw compute capability, the MX230's 783.9 GFLOPS FP32 output and 256 shading units indicate it has more theoretical horsepower than the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS and 144 shading units. Yet the benchmark results show the GT 555M converts its resources more effectively in OpenCL. This contradiction suggests the MX230 may win in workloads that are well-optimized for its architecture, while the GT 555M retains an edge in legacy or less-optimized code paths.

The MX230 also wins on production status and platform integration. It is listed as an IGP with no power connectors, meaning it can be soldered directly onto motherboards in thin laptops. The GT 555M, being from 2011, is end-of-life and belongs to a generation of discrete GPUs that required more substantial cooling and power delivery. For new system designs, the MX230 is the only realistic option between the two, as the GT 555M has no modern platform support.

Ultimately, the data supports a split decision. The GT 555M is the winner in the only head-to-head test, making it the pick for OpenCL compute tasks. The MX230 is the pick for modern gaming, efficient operation, and any workload that benefits from more memory, higher bandwidth, or newer API support. The GT 555M's single benchmark win does not outweigh the MX230's comprehensive improvements in architecture and features, but it does prove that raw compute performance is not solely determined by generational advancement.