NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by seven years of architecture evolution. The GTX 670M is a high-end Fermi-based part from 2012, while the MX230 is a low-power Pascal-based entry-level chip from 2019. Direct benchmark comparison, however, reveals a nuanced picture that defies simple generational assumptions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show the older GTX 670M holding a decisive lead. The GTX 670M scores 6,513 points, while the MX230 manages 5,739 points. This translates to a 13.5% advantage for the GTX 670M in raw compute throughput as measured by this test. The margin is significant: it places the GTX 670M comfortably ahead of the MX230 in absolute OpenCL performance, despite the latter’s much newer architecture and much lower power envelope.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups clarifies the picture. The GTX 670M’s score places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered around it. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M trails by just 0.3%, the Quadro M5000M by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile by 0.6%. Meanwhile, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 0.6% ahead of the GTX 670M. This indicates that the GTX 670M is essentially at parity with a broad mid-range cohort; its performance is not exceptional but is solidly competitive with its contemporaries.

The MX230, by contrast, sits at the 35th percentile, three points lower than the GTX 670M. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX A400, has an average score of 6,078, which is 0% different from the MX230’s average (6,077). The Quadro P2000 is 0.5% behind the MX230, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 0.7% ahead and the AMD Radeon 760M is 1% ahead. The MX230 is thus grouped with entry-level desktop and professional parts, and its performance is slightly below the midpoint of that group.

The head-to-head delta of 13.5% is substantial in this context. To put it in perspective, the difference between the GTX 670M and its closest rival is 0.3%, while the difference between the MX230 and its closest rival is 0%. The gap between the two chips in question is over 40 times larger than the gap between each chip and its nearest competitor. This suggests that while each GPU is finely matched with its direct peers, the GTX 670M occupies a higher performance tier entirely than the MX230 in OpenCL workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M, with a score of 6,513 compared to the MX230’s 5,739. The GTX 670M wins by a margin of 13.5%.

Q: How does the GTX 670M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 670M is within 0.6% of the GT 555M, Quadro M5000M, and Radeon Vega 10 Mobile. It trails the Intel UHD Graphics P750 by 0.6%. Its performance is effectively tied with this peer group.

Q: What about the MX230’s standing among its peers?

A: The MX230 is essentially tied with the RTX A400 (0% delta) and is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000. It trails the Iris Pro 6200 by 0.7% and the Radeon 760M by 1%. Its performance cluster is clearly lower than the GTX 670M’s.

Q: Does the MX230 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The MX230 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6,414, a test for which the GTX 670M has no recorded result. However, the GTX 670M has no Vulkan API support listed, so this metric is not directly comparable.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The GTX 670M is in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX230 is in the 35th percentile. This indicates the GTX 670M outperforms a larger fraction of the overall GPU landscape than the MX230.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 670M, with an average score of 6,513, versus the MX230’s average of 6,077. This difference of 436 points reflects the GTX 670M’s higher overall compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The GTX 670M uses the GF114 chip, based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process yields a die size of 332 mm² and a transistor count of 1,950 million, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². The MX230, in contrast, uses the GP108 chip based on the newer Pascal architecture, built on Samsung’s 14 nm process. This modern process allows for a much smaller die at just 74 mm², while housing 1,800 million transistors, yielding a dramatically higher density of 24.3 million transistors per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The GTX 670M is equipped with 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The MX230 has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This reflects the GTX 670M’s design as a higher-throughput part, despite its older architecture.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The GTX 670M uses 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a much narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 670M’s wider bus gives it a 50% bandwidth advantage, which is critical for memory-intensive tasks.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The MX230 has a base clock of 1,519 MHz and a boost clock of 1,531 MHz, while the GTX 670M has no listed base or boost clocks. The MX230’s memory runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), whereas the GTX 670M’s memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The MX230’s higher clocks and newer architecture allow it to achieve a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s, which is nearly three times the GTX 670M’s 8.372 GPixel/s. However, the GTX 670M still edges out the MX230 in texture rate (33.49 GTexel/s vs. 24.50 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (803.7 GFLOPS vs. 783.9 GFLOPS).

API support also differs. The GTX 670M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX230 also lists FP16 capability at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the GTX 670M’s specifications.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is the superior performer in the only directly comparable benchmark. Its 13.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is decisive, and its higher percentile ranking (38th vs. 35th) confirms that it sits above the MX230 in the overall performance hierarchy. Users seeking maximum raw compute performance, particularly for OpenCL-accelerated applications, should favor the GTX 670M.

However, the choice is not solely about peak performance. The MX230’s architecture offers significant advantages in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 14 nm Pascal process, while smaller in absolute transistor count, is vastly more dense and operates at much higher clocks. Its power consumption is listed at a mere 10 W, compared to the GTX 670M’s 75 W, making it suitable for ultra-thin and fanless designs. The MX230 also supports newer DirectX 12 (12_1) features and Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 670M lacks.

For a user prioritizing compatibility with modern graphics APIs and battery life, the MX230 is the rational choice. For a user whose primary concern is raw compute throughput in legacy or OpenCL workloads, the GTX 670M remains the stronger option. The GTX 670M’s higher texture rate and FP32 output, combined with its wider memory bus, give it a structural advantage that the MX230’s clock speed advantage cannot fully overcome. The verdict is conditional: the GTX 670M wins on performance, while the MX230 wins on efficiency and modern feature set.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M | 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 |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

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

| Shading Units | 336 | 256 |

| TMUs | 56 | 16 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.372 GPixel/s | 24.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.49 GTexel/s | 24.50 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 803.7 GFLOPS | 783.9 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 75 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 | 2012-03-21 | 2019-02-20 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Not listed |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Not listed |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6513 | 5739 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6513 | 6077 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 38 | 35 |