NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, if not overwhelming, victory for the older NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 across the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 750 scores 9,315 points against the MX230’s 5,739, a decisive margin of 62.3%. This is a substantial gap that places the GTX 750 firmly in a different performance tier for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The MX230, by contrast, trails significantly, and its score is far closer to its own nearest rivals than to the GTX 750.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, narrows the gap but still favors the GTX 750. Here, the GTX 750 records 8,078 points, while the MX230 manages 6,414, resulting in a 25.9% advantage for the older card. While not as lopsided as the OpenCL result, this is still a comfortable lead. It suggests that the GTX 750’s architecture, despite being older, handles the Vulkan API with greater efficiency or raw throughput than the newer Pascal-based MX230. The MX230’s Vulkan score is respectable, but it does not close the distance.

Looking at the broader averages, the GTX 750’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 7,222 points, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The MX230’s average score is 6,077, which lands it in the 35th percentile. The delta between the two average scores is not directly listed in the head-to-head data, but the individual test deltas of 62.3% and 25.9% paint a consistent picture: the GTX 750 wins every shared workload, and its lead is most pronounced in compute-heavy OpenCL tasks.

It is notably the MX230 has no Geekbench Metal score listed, while the GTX 750 does (4,274 points). This absence in the data means we cannot compare their Metal performance directly, but it does not change the outcome of the two tests where they do intersect. The wins tally is 2 for the GTX 750 and 0 for the MX230, a clean sweep in the head-to-head segment.

One could question whether the MX230’s lower power draw (10 W versus 55 W) might make it more attractive in specific ultra-portable scenarios, but in pure benchmark terms, the data does not support a performance win for the MX230. The GTX 750 is simply faster in every measured category available.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is straightforward based on the benchmark results. The GTX 750 dominates in OpenCL performance, which is often used for general-purpose GPU compute tasks such as video encoding, physics simulations, and certain scientific applications. Its 62.3% lead in this test means that any workload relying heavily on OpenCL will see a substantial performance advantage with the GTX 750. The Vulkan test, while closer, still shows a 25.9% lead for the GTX 750, indicating that it is also the stronger choice for modern graphics APIs that are used in many contemporary games and applications.

The MX230, despite losing both tests, has its own niche. Its power consumption is dramatically lower: 10 W compared to the GTX 750’s 55 W. This makes it a far more suitable option for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal limits are paramount. The data does not include a battery life or thermal benchmark, but the TDP figures alone suggest that the MX230 is designed for efficiency rather than raw performance. In a scenario where sustained performance is less critical than portability and low heat output, the MX230’s lower power draw is a tangible advantage, even if it cannot be quantified in the benchmark scores.

Additionally, the MX230 has a higher base clock (1,519 MHz versus 1,020 MHz) and boost clock (1,531 MHz versus 1,085 MHz), which could theoretically give it an edge in bursty, short-duration tasks that do not scale with the GTX 750’s higher shader count (512 versus 256). However, the benchmark data does not include such a test, so this remains a speculative advantage based on clock speeds alone. The recorded wins are entirely on the GTX 750’s side.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 has an average benchmark score of 7,222 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has an average of 6,077 points.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 750 in the OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 750 scores 9,315 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 62.3% higher than the MX230’s 5,739 points.

Q: Does the MX230 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The recorded data shows the GTX 750 wins both shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with a total of 2 wins for the GTX 750 and 0 for the MX230.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 750 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The MX230 has a higher pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 750’s 17.36 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly across several core specifications. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the MX230 uses the GP108 chip on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is a major factor in their respective power and density profiles. The GTX 750 has a die size of 148 mm² and 1,870 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The MX230’s die is much smaller at 74 mm², with 1,800 million transistors, giving it a higher density of 24.3M per mm².

Memory is another clear divergence. The GTX 750 offers 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface, with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The MX230 doubles the capacity to 2 GB but uses a narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor the MX230, which runs at a base of 1,519 MHz and boosts to 1,531 MHz, compared to the GTX 750’s 1,020 MHz base and 1,085 MHz boost. The memory clock is higher on the MX230 as well, at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 750’s 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 750. It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The MX230 has half the shading units (256), half the TMUs (16), but the same number of ROPs (16). This results in the GTX 750 having a higher texture rate of 34.72 GTexel/s versus the MX230’s 24.50 GTexel/s, and a higher FP32 throughput of 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS. The MX230 does have a higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 17.36 GPixel/s) due to its higher clock speeds.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GTX 750 has a TDP of 55 W and requires a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the MX230 has a TDP of just 10 W and no suggested PSU listed. The GTX 750 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the MX230 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no connectors. The bus interface differs too: the GTX 750 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are another point of difference: the GTX 750 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a, whereas the MX230’s outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two GPUs is significant, reflecting their different generations and design goals. The GTX 750 is based on the Maxwell architecture, a design that was known for its efficiency improvements over its predecessor but still relied on a mature 28 nm process. The MX230, on the other hand, is based on Pascal, a newer architecture that benefits from the 14 nm process node at Samsung. This process shrink is a primary reason for the MX230’s drastically lower power consumption (10 W versus 55 W) and higher clock speeds.

The chip designs themselves differ in scale. The GTX 750’s GM107 die is larger (148 mm²) and houses more transistors (1,870 million), but at a lower density. The MX230’s GP108 die is smaller (74 mm²) with slightly fewer transistors (1,800 million) but a much higher density. The higher density and newer process allow the MX230 to achieve higher clocks while using far less power, but the GTX 750 compensates with a wider memory bus and more shading units.

The memory architecture is a key differentiator. The GTX 750’s 128-bit bus provides 80.19 GB/s, which is a substantial bandwidth advantage over the MX230’s 64-bit bus at 48.06 GB/s. This bandwidth difference likely explains the GTX 750’s superior performance in compute-heavy tasks, as it can feed its 512 shading units more efficiently. The MX230’s 2 GB capacity is a capacity advantage, but it comes at the cost of bandwidth.

The feature sets also differ in their DirectX support. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the MX230 has a more modern feature level, which could be relevant for certain newer games or applications that use DirectX 12_1 features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The MX230 also lists an FP16 throughput of 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 750 has no FP16 data listed, suggesting the MX230 has at least some half-precision capability, though it is minimal.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. Its 62.3% lead in OpenCL and 25.9% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for any workload that relies on these APIs. The GTX 750’s higher average score (7,222 versus 6,077) and its higher percentile ranking (40th versus 35th) reinforce this conclusion. Users seeking raw graphics or compute performance should choose the GTX 750 without hesitation.

However, the MX230 is not without its merits, and its target audience is different. The data shows a TDP of just 10 W, which is 45 W lower than the GTX 750. This makes the MX230 the only sensible option for ultra-portable devices where power draw is critical. The MX230 also has a higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 17.36 GPixel/s) and a more modern DirectX 12_1 feature level, which could be beneficial in specific, power-constrained scenarios. For users who prioritize battery life and low heat over performance, and who are willing to accept a 62.3% deficit in OpenCL and a 25.9% deficit in Vulkan, the MX230 is the appropriate pick.

The verdict is not a close call on performance: the GTX 750 wins decisively. The MX230 wins on efficiency and modern feature support, but the benchmark data offers no performance scenario where it beats the GTX 750. Therefore, the GTX 750 is recommended for any user who needs the best possible performance from these two options, while the MX230 is recommended for users in a constrained power envelope, such as thin-and-light laptops, where performance is secondary to endurance and thermals.