NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 records an average benchmark score of 6077, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5236. The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 31st percentile for the GTX 760M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the two recorded tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX230 leads by 2.4% (5739 vs. 5604). In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX230 wins by a much larger 31.8% margin (6414 vs. 4868). The MX230 wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: What architectures do these two mobile GPUs use?

A: The MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture with a GP108 chip, while the GTX 760M uses the older Kepler architecture with a GK106S chip. The MX230 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, whereas the GTX 760M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 760M has a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX230 has a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The MX230 runs its memory at 6 Gbps effective, versus 4 Gbps effective for the GTX 760M.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The MX230 has a base clock of 1519 MHz and a boost clock of 1531 MHz. The GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Even though the GTX 760M has more shading units, the MX230's much higher clocks help it win in compute tests.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The MX230 has a TDP of 10 W, while the GTX 760M draws 55 W. The MX230 is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 760M is an MXM module, also without external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of NVIDIA mobile silicon. The MX230 is a Pascal-era part (GP108) fabricated on Samsung's 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The GTX 760M is a Kepler-era part (GK106S) built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 2,540 million transistors spread over a much larger 221 mm² die, giving a lower density of 11.5M per mm².

The compute layouts diverge sharply. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having three times the shader count and four times the TMUs, the GTX 760M's low clocks (628 MHz base, 719 MHz boost) limit its throughput. The MX230 compensates with a 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, more than double the GTX 760M's clock speed.

Rasterization rates reflect this trade-off. The MX230 achieves a pixel rate of 24.50 GPixel/s, while the GTX 760M manages only 11.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the GTX 760M at 46.02 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s for the MX230, thanks to the larger TMU count. Floating-point throughput (FP32) goes to the GTX 760M at 1,104.4 GFLOPS, compared to 783.9 GFLOPS for the MX230. The MX230 supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 760M has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support differs slightly. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface also differs: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, and the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 760M is an MXM module, while the MX230 is an IGP. Both use portable device dependent display outputs.

The GTX 760M has a known predecessor (GeForce 600M) and successor (GeForce 800M), while the MX230 has neither. The MX230 is from the GeForce MX (2xx) generation, and the GTX 760M is from the GeForce 700M generation. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark tests for these GPUs, and the MX230 wins both. The first test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the MX230 scores 5739 against 5604 for the GTX 760M. This is a narrow 2.4% margin. The MX230's higher clocks and modern architecture edge out the older Kepler part despite the GTX 760M's larger shader count and wider memory bus.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the gap widens dramatically. The MX230 scores 6414, while the GTX 760M scores 4868. That is a 31.8% advantage for the MX230. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from newer driver optimizations and architecture efficiency. The Pascal-based MX230 clearly extracts more performance per watt and per clock in this workload than the Kepler-based GTX 760M.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: 6077 for the MX230 versus 5236 for the GTX 760M. The MX230 outperforms its class rivals closely, sitting near the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta) and the Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% ahead). The GTX 760M is close to the Quadro 4000M (5211, 0.5% ahead) and the GeForce 940M (5284, 0.9% behind). The MX230's percentile rank of 35 versus 31 for the GTX 760M confirms its higher standing.

The only metric where the GTX 760M shows a clear structural advantage is texture rate and FP32 throughput, but these do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmarks. The MX230's 24.50 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than double the GTX 760M's 11.50 GPixel/s, which likely helps in geometry and fill-rate bound tasks. The GTX 760M's 46.02 GTexel/s texture rate is nearly double the MX230's 24.50 GTexel/s, but the benchmark results show that real-world workloads favor the MX230's higher clocks and newer architecture.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across every major specification category. The process node is 14 nm (Samsung) for the MX230 versus 28 nm (TSMC) for the GTX 760M. Transistor counts are 1,800 million for the MX230 and 2,540 million for the GTX 760M. Die sizes are 74 mm² and 221 mm², respectively.

Clock speeds: the MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the MX230 and 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 760M.

Memory bus width: 64-bit for the MX230, 128-bit for the GTX 760M. Memory bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s for the MX230, 64.13 GB/s for the GTX 760M. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5.

Shading units: 256 for the MX230, 768 for the GTX 760M. TMUs: 16 versus 64. ROPs: 16 for both. Pixel rate: 24.50 GPixel/s versus 11.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 24.50 GTexel/s versus 46.02 GTexel/s. FP32: 783.9 GFLOPS versus 1,104.4 GFLOPS. FP16: 12.25 GFLOPS for the MX230, none for the GTX 760M.

TDP: 10 W for the MX230, 55 W for the GTX 760M. Slot width: IGP for the MX230, MXM Module for the GTX 760M. Power connectors: none for both. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX230, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 760M.

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) for the MX230, 12 (11_0) for the GTX 760M. Vulkan: 1.4 for the MX230, 1.2.175 for the GTX 760M. OpenGL 4.6 for both. Release dates: 2019-02-20 for the MX230, 2013-05-29 for the GTX 760M. The GTX 760M has a predecessor and successor, the MX230 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The MX230 wins in all recorded benchmark tests. Its strength lies in modern architecture efficiency, high clock speeds, and superior Vulkan performance. The 31.8% lead in Vulkan indicates that the Pascal generation handles low-level API workloads much more effectively than Kepler. The MX230 also wins in OpenCL by 2.4%, showing a consistent if modest advantage in compute tasks. For users running modern API-based applications, the MX230 is clearly the better choice.

The MX230's 10 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is critical. Its IGP form factor means it is integrated into the motherboard, and it requires no external power connectors. The GTX 760M's 55 W TDP and MXM module form factor target larger, more power-hungry gaming laptops from an earlier era.

The GTX 760M still has theoretical advantages in raw texture throughput (46.02 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (1,104.4 GFLOPS). In workloads that are heavily texture-bound or require raw shader throughput, the GTX 760M's larger shader and TMU counts could provide an edge, despite the lower clocks. However, the recorded benchmarks do not reflect such a win. The GTX 760M also has a wider 128-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth (64.13 GB/s), which could help in memory-heavy tasks, but again, the benchmark data shows no such advantage.

For gaming and general GPU compute, the MX230's higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s) and modern architecture make it the more capable part. It also has newer API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) and a much later release date, meaning better driver maturity for current software. The GTX 760M is a legacy part from 2013 with Kepler-era features, limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

In summary, the MX230 is the winner for any modern workload, especially Vulkan-based games or compute. The GTX 760M retains theoretical compute advantages but fails to convert them into actual benchmark wins. The data shows a clear recommendation: choose the MX230 for better performance, lower power draw, and newer feature support.