NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database records only one direct OpenCL comparison between these two mobile GPUs, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M takes that victory decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 675M scores 6946 points against 5739 for the MX230, a 21% advantage. That is the only head-to-head data point available, so the GTX 675M claims all wins in the recorded comparison set.

However, the MX230 has a separate advantage in the database: it has a recorded Vulkan score. The GTX 675M has no Vulkan result listed at all, while the MX230 produces 6414 points in that API test. This suggests the MX230 can handle modern graphics workloads through Vulkan, whereas the older Fermi-based part has no such data recorded. For users prioritizing contemporary API support, the MX230 holds the only card in that specific arena.

Looking at broader percentiles, the GTX 675M sits at the 39th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the MX230 lands at the 35th percentile. The GTX 675M’s average benchmark score of 6946 places it slightly ahead of its nearest rivals: it trails the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975) by 0.4%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023) by 1.1%, and the NVIDIA T600 (7035) by 1.3%, while leading the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) by 1.7%. The MX230’s average score of 6077 puts it essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049), 0.7% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6019).

The practical split is clear: the GTX 675M wins raw compute performance in the recorded OpenCL test, while the MX230 offers the only Vulkan path and a much lower power envelope, which favors thin-and-light notebooks over bulky gaming machines.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 675M is built on the GF114 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX230, by contrast, uses the GP108 chip with Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 1,800 million transistors on a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, a density over four times higher.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The GTX 675M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 also has 2 GB of GDDR5, but on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width and cutting bandwidth to 48.06 GB/s. Memory clock rates reflect this gap: the GTX 675M runs its memory at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the MX230 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The MX230’s faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but total bandwidth remains half.

Compute resources favor the GTX 675M in raw counts. It has 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel fill rates tell a different story: the MX230 achieves 24.50 GPixel/s versus 9.920 GPixel/s for the GTX 675M, because the MX230’s much higher clock speed drives pixel throughput despite fewer ROPs. Texture rates are 39.68 GTexel/s for the GTX 675M and 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230. FP32 compute shows 952.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 675M versus 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230. The MX230 also lists FP16 performance at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the GTX 675M does not record.

Clocks are a defining difference. The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The GTX 675M has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, only its memory clock. This means the MX230 operates at far higher frequencies, a direct consequence of the smaller 14 nm process.

Power consumption is radically different. The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module slot width. The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W and is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface. Both use no power connectors and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release timing also separates them: the GTX 675M launched on 2012-03-21 as part of the GeForce 600M generation, while the MX230 launched on 2019-02-20 in the GeForce MX (2xx) generation. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different use cases. The GTX 675M is the stronger compute performer in OpenCL, with a 21% edge over the MX230 in the recorded head-to-head test. Its wider 256-bit memory bus, higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s), more shading units, and higher FP32 throughput (952.3 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS) make it the better choice for tasks that rely on sustained parallel throughput.

The MX230, however, wins on efficiency and modern API support. Its 10 W TDP versus the GTX 675M’s 100 W TDP means it can operate in much thinner, lighter laptops without active cooling demands. It supports Vulkan 1.4, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 675M’s specification list. Its higher pixel fill rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 9.920 GPixel/s) indicates stronger performance in pixel-heavy workloads, despite fewer ROPs.

For legacy gaming on older DirectX 11 titles, the GTX 675M’s raw muscle likely delivers better frame rates, based on its higher compute and memory bandwidth. For modern applications that leverage Vulkan or for users who need a low-power GPU in a portable chassis, the MX230 is the only sensible pick, as the GTX 675M simply cannot fit that power envelope.

The database records one win for the GTX 675M and zero for the MX230 in direct comparisons, but the MX230’s Vulkan result and far lower TDP make it the more versatile option for current-generation software. Users who need maximum compute from the data should choose the GTX 675M; users who need portability and modern API coverage should choose the MX230.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739, giving the GTX 675M a 21% advantage in that test.

Q: Does the MX230 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 lists Vulkan 1.4 support and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6414. The GTX 675M has no Vulkan support or benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 675M has a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX230 has a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, so the GTX 675M offers exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, a tenfold difference that makes the MX230 suitable for low-power integrated designs.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 675M has 384 shading units, compared to 256 on the MX230, a 50% higher count for the older Fermi-based part.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The GTX 675M released on 2012-03-21, and the MX230 released on 2019-02-20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 675M scores 6946, and the MX230 scores 5739. The delta is 21% in favor of the GTX 675M. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the GTX 675M’s larger memory bus, higher bandwidth, and greater shading unit count. The MX230’s higher clock speeds (1519 MHz base, 1531 MHz boost versus no recorded clocks for the GTX 675M) are not enough to overcome the GTX 675M’s hardware advantages in this compute workload.

The MX230’s Vulkan result of 6414 cannot be directly compared to the GTX 675M, as the latter has no Vulkan score. This is itself a meaningful data point: it indicates the MX230 is compatible with modern graphics APIs, while the GTX 675M’s Fermi 2.0 architecture is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. In the database’s percentile rankings, the GTX 675M sits at the 39th percentile, four points above the MX230’s 35th percentile, which aligns with the GTX 675M’s higher average benchmark score of 6946 versus 6077.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the GTX 675M is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975, 0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, 1.1% behind), while comfortably ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, 1.7% ahead). The MX230 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% ahead), while slightly behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117, 0.7% behind) and ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6019, 1% ahead). These figures place the GTX 675M in a higher performance tier overall, despite its much older architecture and higher power draw.