NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between these two mobile GPUs, with each claiming one victory in the two available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 6125 against the MX230's 5739, a delta of -6.3% when viewed from the MX230's perspective. That means the older Kepler part holds a 6.3% advantage in this compute-oriented workload. The MX230's average benchmark score across both tests is 6077, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 670MX averages 5721 and sits at the 33rd percentile.

The Geekbench Vulkan result flips the narrative decisively. Here the MX230 posts 6414 versus the GTX 670MX's 5316, a 20.7% lead for the Pascal-based chip. This is a substantial margin, suggesting the MX230 handles modern graphics API workloads with far greater efficiency. The delta between the two GPUs' Vulkan scores is more than three times larger than the OpenCL gap, indicating that the architectural generation gap matters most when the API is newer and more demanding on feature support.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for each score. The MX230's average of 6077 sits within a tight cluster: the NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 6078 (0% delta), the Quadro P2000 scores 6049 (0.5% ahead of the MX230), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117 (0.7% behind the MX230), and the AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019 (1% behind). The MX230 is essentially in a dead heat with these four competitors, none of which separate themselves by more than a single percentage point. Meanwhile, the GTX 670MX's average of 5721 aligns closely with the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 at 5712 (0.2% behind the GTX 670MX), the GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (0.2% ahead), the Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (0.5% behind), and the Quadro M500M at 5604 (2.1% behind). The older card sits comfortably in its own performance tier, slightly weaker than the MX230's cluster.

When comparing the two directly, the aggregate picture shows a 6.2% average score advantage for the MX230 (6077 vs 5721). Yet the individual test results reveal that the GTX 670MX is not obsolete in every scenario—its OpenCL win demonstrates raw compute capability that remains competitive. The Vulkan result, however, is where the MX230's newer architecture shows its strength, and the 20.7% margin there outweighs the narrower OpenCL deficit.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion rather than a clear overall winner. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based workloads—which includes many modern games and compute applications—the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the superior choice by a wide margin. Its 6414 Vulkan score is 20.7% higher than the GTX 670MX's 5316, and this API is increasingly relevant for current software. The MX230 also holds a higher percentile ranking (35th vs 33rd) and a higher average benchmark score (6077 vs 5721).

However, the GTX 670MX retains a legitimate claim in OpenCL scenarios. Its 6125 score beats the MX230 by 6.3%, and that advantage could matter for users running legacy OpenCL applications or workloads that do not leverage Vulkan. The GTX 670MX also offers triple the memory capacity at 3 GB versus 2 GB, which may benefit certain memory-intensive tasks despite the lower overall benchmark averages.

For most users, the MX230 is the more future-proof selection. Its 20.7% Vulkan lead is a decisive factor, and its higher average score confirms it as the stronger all-around performer. The GTX 670MX is best suited for those with specific OpenCL-dependent workloads or a need for additional video memory, provided they can tolerate its lower Vulkan performance and older feature set. The data does not declare a universal victor—it identifies a clear API-based split where each GPU wins in its preferred environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip built on Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process node. It integrates 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 670MX, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, but its density is only 12.0 million per square millimeter—roughly half the MX230's density.

The Kepler part compensates with raw hardware resources. The GTX 670MX has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, compared to the MX230's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the GTX 670MX's higher theoretical texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230, and its higher FP32 throughput of 1,153.9 GFLOPS against 783.9 GFLOPS. The MX230 does counter with a higher pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s, a benefit of its much higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MX230 runs at a 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the GTX 670MX is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost. That 2.5x clock advantage helps the MX230 overcome the GTX 670MX's hardware count advantage in certain scenarios. Memory clocks also diverge: the MX230 runs its GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 670MX runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The GTX 670MX compensates with a wider 192-bit bus versus 64-bit, resulting in 67.20 GB/s bandwidth versus 48.06 GB/s.

API support shows the generational gap. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 670MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but only Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX230 also supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 670MX has no listed FP16 capability. The MX230 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, whereas the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power consumption differs markedly: the MX230 is rated at 10 W TDP with IGP slot width, while the GTX 670MX draws 75 W and has no listed slot width.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6077 across its benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX averages 5721. This gives the MX230 a 6.2% higher average score.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The MX230 scores 6414 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 5316 for the GTX 670MX, a 20.7% advantage for the MX230.

Q: Does the GTX 670MX win in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the GTX 670MX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6125 against the MX230's 5739, a 6.3% margin.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 670MX has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 67.20 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX230 has a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter, versus 12.0 million for the GTX 670MX, reflecting the MX230's newer 14 nm process node.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX230 is within 1% of the RTX A400, Quadro P2000, Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and Radeon 760M. The GTX 670MX is within 2.1% of the Iris Pro P6300, GTX 550 Ti, Radeon HD 8790M, and Quadro M500M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins decisively in Vulkan workloads, with its 6414 score beating the GTX 670MX's 5316 by 20.7%. This makes it the preferred choice for modern graphics applications, particularly those leveraging Vulkan for rendering or compute. The MX230 also wins on power efficiency, consuming only 10 W versus 75 W, and its higher pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s indicates better fill-rate performance despite fewer ROPs. Its smaller die size and higher transistor density suggest better manufacturing efficiency, and its newer Pascal architecture supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX wins in OpenCL compute, scoring 6125 versus 5739, a 6.3% advantage. This makes it suitable for OpenCL-dependent applications, legacy compute workloads, or scenarios where raw FP32 throughput (1,153.9 GFLOPS) matters more than API modernity. Its larger memory capacity (3 GB vs 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (67.20 GB/s vs 48.06 GB/s) could benefit memory-heavy tasks. The wider 192-bit memory bus and higher number of shading units (960 vs 256) give it a theoretical compute advantage in multi-threaded workloads that do not rely on newer API features. Its texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is nearly double the MX230's 24.50 GTexel/s, which may help in texture-bound OpenCL operations.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the provided data:

| Field | MX230 | GTX 670MX |

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

| Chip | GP108 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce MX (2xx) | GeForce 600M |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1519 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 67.20 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 960 |

| TMUs | 16 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.50 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.50 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.9 GFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 10 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2019-02-20 | 2012-09-30 |

| Predecessor | null | GeForce 500M |

| Successor | null | GeForce 700M |

| OpenCL Score | 5739 | 6125 |

| Vulkan Score | 6414 | 5316 |

| Percentile | 35 | 33 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6077 | 5721 |