NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9,230, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5,739. That gives the GTX 680M a 60.8% advantage in raw compute throughput, a massive margin for any head-to-head comparison. In practical terms, this means the older Kepler flagship is roughly 1.6 times faster than the newer Pascal entry-level part in this particular OpenCL workload.

The MX230 does have two additional benchmark entries in its profile, but neither has a direct counterpart on the GTX 680M side. In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX230 scores 6,414, and in Geekbench Metal, the GTX 680M scores 4,815. These are not comparable apples-to-apples figures, but they do provide context for where each GPU sits in the broader database. The GTX 680M's Metal score is notably lower than its OpenCL result, which suggests the older architecture may not be as well optimized for Apple's Metal API, though the database does not provide a direct Metal score for the MX230.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the GTX 680M posts 7,023 versus 6,077 for the MX230. That is a 946-point gap, or roughly 15.6% ahead on average. The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the GTX 680M sits at the 39th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the MX230 sits at the 35th percentile. Neither card is anywhere near the top tier, but the GTX 680M consistently outperforms its younger rival.

The nearest rival data confirms that both cards are tightly clustered in the lower-midrange of the database. The GTX 680M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA T600, which scores 7,035, a delta of only -0.2%. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 trails by 0.7%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M trails by 1.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 leads by 1.9%. For the MX230, its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A400, which scores 6,078, essentially a tie at 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5%, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 leads by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1%. These tight clusters indicate that neither GPU is a standout in its class; both are firmly middle-of-the-pack performers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, despite both carrying the NVIDIA name. The GTX 680M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The MX230 uses the GP108 chip with the Pascal architecture, produced by Samsung on a 14 nm node. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm means the MX230's transistors are substantially smaller, allowing for higher density and better power efficiency per transistor.

The transistor counts tell a surprising story. The GTX 680M packs 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², while the MX230 contains 1,800 million transistors on just 74 mm². That works out to a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² for the Kepler chip versus 24.3M per mm² for the Pascal chip. The MX230 crams nearly double the transistors into roughly one-quarter of the silicon area, a direct reflection of the process node advantage.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the older card. The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The MX230 has just 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 680M's shading unit count is more than five times higher, and its TMU count is seven times higher. This explains the massive OpenCL delta despite the MX230's clock speed advantage.

Clock speeds favor the MX230 considerably. The GTX 680M runs at a base clock of 719 MHz with a boost of 758 MHz, while the MX230 runs at 1,519 MHz base and 1,531 MHz boost, more than double the base clock. Memory clocks also favor the newer card: the GTX 680M uses 900 MHz memory (3.6 Gbps effective), while the MX230 uses 1,502 MHz memory (6 Gbps effective). However, the GTX 680M compensates with a 256-bit memory bus versus the MX230's 64-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth versus 48.06 GB/s. The GTX 680M delivers more than double the memory bandwidth despite slower memory clocks.

Memory capacity also diverges sharply. The GTX 680M offers 4 GB of GDDR5, while the MX230 offers only 2 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the bus width and capacity differences are substantial. The GTX 680M has a pixel rate of 21.22 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s, while the MX230 has a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.50 GTexel/s. The MX230 actually wins on pixel throughput, but the GTX 680M dominates texture fill.

Floating-point performance follows the shading unit count. The GTX 680M delivers 2.038 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX230 delivers 783.9 GFLOPS, less than half. The MX230 has a nominal FP16 figure of 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is severely limited; the GTX 680M reports no FP16 capability at all in the database.

Power consumption is a stark differentiator. The GTX 680M 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. The MX230 is designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the GTX 680M was built for gaming notebooks with dedicated graphics modules. The 10x TDP difference explains the performance gap but also highlights the MX230's efficiency advantage.

API support shows the newer card's generation advantage. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the Kepler part lacks some of the newer feature-level capabilities. The MX230 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins in any scenario that demands raw compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, or large frame buffer capacity. Its 4 GB frame buffer makes it better suited for higher-resolution textures and larger working sets, which is relevant for older games or professional applications that are not VRAM-constrained. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, which matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads such as texture streaming, post-processing effects, and compute shaders that access memory heavily. The 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 throughput gives it a clear edge in general-purpose compute, including OpenCL workloads like the one recorded in the head-to-head test.

The MX230 wins in power-constrained environments. Its 10 W TDP is one-tenth of the GTX 680M's 100 W, making it the only sensible choice for ultraportable laptops, thin notebooks, or any system without a dedicated MXM slot and cooling solution. The Pascal architecture's newer feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 support, gives it an advantage for modern games and applications that leverage these newer APIs. The MX230's higher clock speeds and smaller die size also make it more efficient per watt, though the database does not provide a direct performance-per-watt metric.

The GTX 680M's nearest rival data places it alongside the NVIDIA T600 and GTX 970 in average score, which suggests it is competitive with much more recent workstation and desktop cards. The MX230's nearest rivals include the RTX A400 and Quadro P2000, placing it in a lower tier. The GTX 680M's 39th percentile versus the MX230's 35th percentile reinforces that the older card is the stronger performer overall.

For gaming, the GTX 680M is the clear choice if the system can physically accommodate it and provide adequate cooling. Its higher texture rate, more shading units, and greater memory bandwidth will deliver smoother frame rates at higher settings in most titles. The MX230 is better suited for light gaming, media playback, and general productivity where battery life and thermals are the primary constraints.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 in every recorded benchmark metric except pixel rate. The OpenCL head-to-head shows a 60.8% advantage for the GTX 680M, and the average benchmark score gap is 15.6% in its favor. The GTX 680M also ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution, sitting at 39th versus the MX230's 35th.

However, the verdict is not simply "the GTX 680M is better." The two GPUs serve entirely different market segments. The GTX 680M is a 100 W MXM module from 2012, built for performance gaming laptops that had room for a discrete graphics card with active cooling. The MX230 is a 10 W integrated-class GPU from 2019, designed for ultraportables that prioritize battery life and slim form factors. The MX230's 10 W TDP is a full order of magnitude lower, which means it can be passively cooled or fitted into systems where the GTX 680M would never physically fit.

Users who need maximum compute performance and have a compatible MXM slot should choose the GTX 680M. Its 4 GB VRAM, 256-bit bus, and 2.038 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput make it a capable performer for its era, and the nearest rival data shows it still trades blows with much newer workstation cards like the NVIDIA T600. Users who need a modern, power-efficient GPU for a thin laptop with modern API support should choose the MX230. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 support, combined with its 14 nm process efficiency, make it the practical choice for current software ecosystems, even if raw performance is lower.

For anyone deciding between these two for an actual system, the deciding factor should be the platform. If the laptop has an MXM slot and adequate cooling, the GTX 680M is the superior GPU. If the system is an ultraportable with an embedded GPU, the MX230 is the only option that fits. There is no scenario where both cards are valid choices for the same machine.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7,023, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6,077. The GTX 680M is ahead by approximately 15.6%.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 680M in the OpenCL head-to-head test?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9,230 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX230 scores 5,739. The GTX 680M is 60.8% faster in this specific test.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of 10 W. The MX230 consumes one-tenth the power of the GTX 680M.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX230 has the newer feature levels.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, while the MX230 has 256. The GTX 680M has more than five times the shading unit count.