NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The GTX 580M is a high-end Fermi-based part from 2011, while the MX230 is a low-power Pascal-based entry-level chip from 2019. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural story is more nuanced than a simple generational leap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 580M posts a score of 6389 against the MX230’s 5739. This translates to an 11.3% advantage for the older GTX 580M, making it the sole winner in the head-to-head comparison. While an 11.3% lead is not overwhelming, it is consistent and meaningful in real-world compute workloads. The GTX 580M’s average benchmark score of 6389 places it at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230’s average across both OpenCL and Vulkan tests is 6077, landing it at the 35th percentile. This shows that despite being older, the GTX 580M sits in a slightly higher performance tier overall.

However, the MX230 has a notable counterpoint in the Vulkan API, where it scores 6414. This figure is actually higher than the GTX 580M’s OpenCL score of 6389, suggesting that the MX230’s newer architecture is more efficient in modern graphics APIs. The GTX 580M does not have a Vulkan score listed, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible, but the MX230’s Vulkan result indicates that its real-world gaming performance in modern titles could be competitive or superior, despite losing the OpenCL contest.

When examining the nearest rivals, the GTX 580M is exactly matched by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE, with both scoring 6389 and a deltaPct of 0%. It also trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell by a mere 0.3%, while beating the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 by 0.9% and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 by 1%. The MX230, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (deltaPct 0%) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (deltaPct -0.7%), while leading the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5% and the AMD Radeon 760M by 1%. These figures show that both GPUs sit in a crowded mid-to-low tier, where small score differences separate competitors.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is between Fermi 2.0 and Pascal. The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip built on TSMC’s 40 nm process, packing 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die. In contrast, the MX230 uses the GP108 chip on Samsung’s 14 nm process, with 1,800 million transistors in a much smaller 74 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the GTX 580M has 5.9M transistors per mm², while the MX230 has 24.3M per mm². This four-fold density advantage is a direct result of the newer fabrication process, which allows the MX230 to achieve comparable compute capabilities in a fraction of the silicon area.

The compute resources are starkly different. The GTX 580M features 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the MX230 achieves a higher pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s. This is due to the Pascal architecture’s improved per-clock efficiency and higher clock speeds. The MX230 runs at a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the GTX 580M’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The texture rate tells a similar story: the MX230 posts 24.50 GTexel/s versus the GTX 580M’s 39.68 GTexel/s, showing that the older card’s higher TMU count gives it an edge in texture-heavy workloads.

Memory subsystems also diverge significantly. Both GPUs have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 580M uses a 256-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX230 uses a 64-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 580M’s memory clock is listed as 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the MX230’s is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The higher effective memory speed on the MX230 partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the GTX 580M still has a 2x bandwidth advantage. This is critical for high-resolution textures and compute tasks that are memory-bound.

In terms of floating-point performance, the GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS. The MX230 also lists an FP16 rate of 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), which is a negligible throughput that indicates it is not designed for half-precision compute. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the MX230 has a TDP of just 10 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface. This 10x power difference is the defining characteristic of the MX230’s design philosophy.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6389, compared to the MX230’s 5739, giving the GTX 580M an 11.3% lead.

Q: Does the MX230 support modern graphics APIs that the GTX 580M lacks?

A: Yes. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 580M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no listed Vulkan support. The MX230’s Vulkan score is 6414, which exceeds the GTX 580M’s OpenCL score.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W and is an MXM module, whereas the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W and is an IGP. The MX230 consumes 90% less power, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 580M has a 256-bit memory bus and a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the MX230 has a 64-bit bus and a bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 580M offers double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The GTX 580M uses 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die (40 nm process), while the MX230 uses 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die (14 nm process). The MX230 has a much higher transistor density of 24.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The MX230 has a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s, which is more than double the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s, despite the older card having more ROPs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M | NVIDIA GeForce MX230 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1519 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1531 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 64 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.920 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.68 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 952.3 GFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 100 W | 10 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

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

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-06-27 | 2019-02-20 |

| Generation | GeForce 500M | GeForce MX (2xx) |

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two GPUs designed for different purposes. The GTX 580M is a performance-first mobile part from 2011, built to deliver maximum compute power at the cost of high power draw. Its 11.3% OpenCL lead over the MX230, combined with double the memory bandwidth and higher FP32 throughput, makes it the superior choice for compute-heavy applications that are not reliant on modern API features. Its 384 shading units and 64 TMUs are simply more numerous than the MX230’s 256 and 16, respectively, giving it a raw throughput advantage.

The MX230, on the other hand, is an efficiency-focused chip that sacrifices raw performance for a 10 W TDP. Its 14 nm process allows for a 24.3M / mm² transistor density, enabling a full Pascal feature set in a tiny 74 mm² die. The MX230’s higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s vs 9.920 GPixel/s) and Vulkan 1.4 support suggest it is better suited for modern game engines and lightweight graphics workloads. Its 6414 Vulkan score indicates that in contemporary API environments, it can outperform the GTX 580M’s best OpenCL result.

For users prioritizing compute density and memory bandwidth in legacy applications, the GTX 580M is the data-backed winner. For users needing a low-power solution with modern API support and better pixel throughput, the MX230 is the logical pick. The GTX 580M wins the single head-to-head benchmark, but the MX230’s architectural advancements make it the more versatile option for current software environments. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the workload is bound by raw FP32 compute and memory bandwidth (GTX 580M) or by modern API efficiency and power constraints (MX230).